| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
weakest Link in the Chain
"chung" wrote in message
news:3qXMb.43729$sv6.118789@attbi_s52... Harry Lavo wrote: As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief among audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts. What else is there? I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a control. Do you not recall? No, I was addressing your immediate post. You were saying that DBT's were "flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts". So you are effectively saying that DBT's are good in revealing audible preceptions such as volume differences, frequency differnces and distortion artifacts. Besides those perceptions, what others effects do you have in mind? Especially considering that Mr Leung was talking about cables? Well lets start with timbre, dimensionality, width and depth of soundstage, transparency, microdynamics, macrodynamic freedom, etc etc. Your pervious double-blind proto-monadic proposals are simply irrelevant in this context. My previous discussion relates to proving that dbt's as typically used are the appropriate tool for open-ended evaluation of audio components. Period. Whether we are talking cables, cd players, amplifiers, phono cartridges, or even speakers. The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF, etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or KEF, or the designers of codecs? Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called "development". No, the tests were performed because they are the most sensitive in detecting audible differences. Training can definitely increase the sensitivity further. You and others are free to take as much training as you like prior to taking the cable test. Given that the cable differences are so obvious, we would have thought that not much training is required, no? Audible differences that are already known or suspected to exist. Not evaluation of components overall. And this has nothing to do with cables per se. In the food industry we used such tests for color, for texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor characteristics. That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you start you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking for / simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component sounds vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason...and there is could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the best way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more apparent in more relaxed listening. The issue isn't so much the blind vs sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a double blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I outlined) may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not practical for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as audiophiles not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended evaluation, we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better bet despite possible sighted bias. That's strange. You *know* that there is sighted bias. You just *speculate* that you need "open-ended" testing. Yet you still prefer sighted testing, despite DBT's being widely used for audio testing, such as in codec development, speaker design, etc. Why is it so hard to tell things apart once you cannot see them? Why are you not relaxed? Because you know you need the sight input? Nope because I've had enough experience with all kinds of tests to know how quickly the wrong evaluative tool can lead to wrong or misleading results. And in this case I believe the blind testing techniques (as usually practiced) are not conducive to evaluative listening. Do the proper testin with control to prove me wrong and i will support your POV. Without proper control testing, I will make my own subjective choice of tools. Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't even care to acknowledge the issue. And obviously you don't knowledge the repeated rebuttals to your issues... I have acknowledged them repeatedly. Explained my reasoning. Established a proper framework for further discussion (i.e. what would the definitive control test be, etc etc.) and all I get is trust us, dbt'ng will work. Also has been pointed out, no control tests have *ever* been done on these techniques against other forms of open-ended evaluative testing of audio components. *THAT* is why most of us are totally disinterested in the $4000 challenge (in addition to the fact that it has only been vaguely promised and the money itself doesn't physically exist in a pool...but it does make a great stick to wave at people, doesn't it.) Why don't you all pool your $4000, do a definitive control test, and if it supports your position write it up and submit it for peer review. Which self-respecting scientific journal will be interested in publishing an experiment that agrees with existing knowledge? Now if you can show that cables that measure within 0.1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz can be distinguished, *that's* worth publishing. I'm talking about a comparative dbt vs a control dbt for evaluative listening. That has not been done and not been published. This is a bit (quite a bit, I think) of a red herring. Well, no self-repecting scientific journal will publish a paper proving the validity of DBT's used in subtle difference detection. You're welcome to disprove it, of course. Well, how about a paper showing that dbt's are *better than* proto-mondadic evaluative testing in discovering those differences. Or not as the case may be. Or that evaluative proto-monadic testing double blind duplicates sighted listening more than it does traditional dbts when conducting open-ended evaluations of audio components. These are all possible conclusions...and I can guarantee you that if a really reigorous proper test were undertaken and properly documented, the paper would be submitted to peer review and be published. Then if it gets accepted you'll get your $4000 worth, and all the free time you won't have to argue here will allow you time to enjoy more music. I'll take the lack of response to indicate a willingness to concede the point. Otherwise I'd have to think you are once again not taking my critique/proposal seriously. :-) I thought I responded already when I said that no self-respecting scientific journal will publish a paper on null results on cable testing. And you are right in a way, I was not taking your proposal seriously, because of the pointlessness of trying to prove something that has been proven so many times... Ah, the very model of open-mindedness. Hey, how about instead of your favorite litany, you actually propose here a proper control test. Would make for a more interesting discussion, don't you think? |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
normanstrong wrote:
The usual phrasing of the old saw is, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." The proper statement would be, "A chain is EXACTLY as strong as its weakest link." That is indeed true if we're talking about physical chains made of metal links. Nothing you can do to the other links will make the chain the least little bit stronger. If you're talking about the quality of a "chain" of audio equipment, the statement is not true. Any improvement in the quality of any of the components of an audio chain will result in an improvement in the quality of the chain itself. This is bad logic. In fact, every time you TOUCH the signal, you degrade it. It's not an improvement at each step of the way, but a loss and an attempt to minimize that loss as much as is possible. Better cables at *best* would just mitigate a tiny fraction of the damage to the signal compared to plain wires. But, real testing shows that the wires are just not a factor. Perhaps that *all* copper comes from the same dozen or so smelting plants around the planet has something to do with it? |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I have never said any such thing. I *have* said that 'wire is wire', because that is what both theory *and* practice tells us. Only a few wild and entirely unsupported claims say otherwise. Do you believe in Bigfoot, or that Elvis lives? Hey! Bigfoot may well *have* existed. There is evidence of a race of giants that were wiped out as soon ago as a few thousand years, so a few stragglers may have susrived for a while and created the legends.  |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
---MIKE--- wrote:
If the differences in cables is so subtle that they won't show up in a DBT, why is anybody concerned about them? Why spend big bucks for something that can't be heard? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money on something that really matters - like better speakers or Room Tunes? Because people can't get over the idea that their pet system is really not that special. Afterall, if a $10 set of wires is good enough, their gold-plated CD player... Heh. |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message news:3qXMb.43729$sv6.118789@attbi_s52... Harry Lavo wrote: As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief among audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts. What else is there? I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a control. Do you not recall? No, I was addressing your immediate post. You were saying that DBT's were "flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts". So you are effectively saying that DBT's are good in revealing audible preceptions such as volume differences, frequency differnces and distortion artifacts. Besides those perceptions, what others effects do you have in mind? Especially considering that Mr Leung was talking about cables? Well lets start with timbre, dimensionality, width and depth of soundstage, transparency, microdynamics, macrodynamic freedom, etc etc. And you think these are not caused by frequency responses differences or distortion differences. And seriously, in cables? Your pervious double-blind proto-monadic proposals are simply irrelevant in this context. My previous discussion relates to proving that dbt's as typically used are the appropriate tool for open-ended evaluation of audio components. Period. Whether we are talking cables, cd players, amplifiers, phono cartridges, or even speakers. The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF, etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or KEF, or the designers of codecs? Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called "development". No, the tests were performed because they are the most sensitive in detecting audible differences. Training can definitely increase the sensitivity further. You and others are free to take as much training as you like prior to taking the cable test. Given that the cable differences are so obvious, we would have thought that not much training is required, no? Audible differences that are already known or suspected to exist. Not evaluation of components overall. And this has nothing to do with cables per se. My participation in this thread was based on disagreeing with what Lawrence said about cables. Not really interested in extending it to a general dbt debate: been there, done that, waste of bandwidth. So, do you agree with Lawrence that there is a cable theory shared by millions of audiophiles? Or that cables can make a big difference in bass response?  |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
In article gi4Nb.55157$8H.104911@attbi_s03,
"Harry Lavo" writes: "Audio Guy" wrote in message news:upXMb.43728$sv6.119711@attbi_s52... In article ntMMb.41503$xy6.112391@attbi_s02, "Harry Lavo" writes: .. I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a control. Do you not recall? I recall that you over and over again promote a single, unduplicated test that you think shows that some of your unfounded critisms of standard DBTs might be valid, yet it had nothing to do with component comparison, much less open-ended, which is often the rallying cry of the anti-DBTers against DBTs. So explain again why *your* test is superior? Thank you for remembering. However, you don't quite remember accurately. The control test I proposed is similar to the Oohashi et al test in that it is evaluative over a range of qualitative factors, done in a relaxed state and environment, and with repeated hearing of full musical excerpts. But it is not a duplicate of the test. The arguments for such tests have been made here for years..long before the Oohashi article was published. He and his researchers apparently reached the same conclusion...that it was a more effective way of testing for the purposes under study...which were semi-open-ended evaluations of the musical reproduction. Double blind, by the way, as was my proposed test. As long as it's double blind I have no problems with it, but I have yet to see you propose any reason for rejecting the current DBTs except that they don't agree with your sighted results. .. Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called "development". In the food industry we used such tests for color, for texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor characteristics. That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you start you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking for / simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component sounds vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason... Yes, because it never ends, and so never gets to a result. This is just retoric and is absolute nonesense! :-( How so, if it is open-ended it seems by definition to not have an end. How do you tell when it has reached the end, when it gets the results you want? could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the best way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more apparent in more relaxed listening. And again, your only defense is that DBT results don't agree with your opinions. DBTs can and have been done over long periods with relaxed listening, and the results are the same. On Tom's say so and without any detailed description or published data. I'm talking about a rigorous, scientific test of dbt, control proto-mondadic, and sighted open ended testing. With careful sample selection, proctoring, statistical analysis, and peer-reviewed publication. Once that is done I will be happy to accept what conclusions emerge. It hasn't been done, and so *assertiosn* that comparative dbt's such as abx are appropriate is just that, an assertion. It's much more than an assertion, it has data to back it up, unlike your assertions that audio DBTs are just "assertions". The issue isn't so much the blind vs sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a double blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I outlined) may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not practical for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as audiophiles not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended evaluation, we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better bet despite possible sighted bias. Again only because you don't agree with the results. Will you please stop saying that. I have no particular stake in this..I am not a proponent of cable differences. I use mostly 12 guage twisted pair in my own system...chosen by sighted listening as offering everything more exotic cables offered that I tested, and better than some. I have an MBA with a strong dose of operations analysis and behavioral psychology...my thinking is pretty disciplined. The inability of the "objectivists" here to acknowledge the primacy of their (your) belief system drives me up the wall. That and the fact that I have twenty years of helping to design and analyze marketing research tests is why I am one of the people here who have challenged the conventional assumptions. But you don't really know what my beliefs are, do you? I actually do know there are differences in audio components because I have performed positive DBTs with components, but since they were not published I doubt they'd be accepted since there were no controls. Because of them I am sure that typical DBTs will show differences when they do exist without needing open-ended proto etc. etc. And I do have an MSEE myself with over twenty years of electronic design experience and know how this stuff works. Now cables on the other hand... Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't even care to acknowledge the issue. There are quite a few issues you obviously don't care to acknowledge yourself, such as JNDs, known bias from knowing a change has been made, etc. How confident are you that you can overcome all of these known biases? Why do you think DBTs were invented? I certainly acknowledge those things. Thats why I propsed a control test along with both dbt and open-end alternative tests. However, barring such a definitive control test, I choose open-end evaluative sighted testing for most purposes in evaluating component, over comparative dbts. I choose it because I believe the type of error that can result is less troublesome. I really doubt that is why you use sighted "evaluation" instead of DBTs. .. I'm talking about a comparative dbt vs a control dbt for evaluative listening. That has not been done and not been published. This is a bit (quite a bit, I think) of a red herring. Not at all, Chung is quite right that proposing such a test would just get big yawns from the scientific community, but your *test* is one huge red herring IMO. You are welcome to your opinion, but I still believe I am right. Design a really well done experiment and it will get published. Or alternatively, show me one rejection from an established journal with a written assessment of a test that has never been done before, stating that it is not worth publishing because it is "old news". You can believe whatever you want, but Chung and I work in the industry and I'm sure we have a better understanding of what would be accepted. I agree that a test proving that valbes do sound different would get published, but I'm not holding my breath till such a report comes about. .. I'll take the lack of response to indicate a willingness to concede the point. Otherwise I'd have to think you are once again not taking my critique/proposal seriously. :-) Why would he, you don't seem to take the mounds of evidence about the results of DBTs seriously. And please no reams of text about 1,75db differences, etc, etc, as I glaze over everytime I read it, so don't bother. I take them seriously, I just don't take them as definitive without a proper control test. End of discussion. You still have yet to show why audio DBTs as typically practiced are not valid tests. What is it that makes you so sure that they aren't? It still boils down to "their results don't agree with (my) sighted evaluations". If this is not true, please explain. |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:57:21 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I have never said any such thing. I *have* said that 'wire is wire', because that is what both theory *and* practice tells us. Only a few wild and entirely unsupported claims say otherwise. Do you believe in Bigfoot, or that Elvis lives? Hey! Bigfoot may well *have* existed. There is evidence of a race of giants that were wiped out as soon ago as a few thousand years, so a few stragglers may have susrived for a while and created the legends. Quite so, and the legend of cable sound still persists, despite a total absence of evidence of its present-day existence. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:00:12 GMT, "chris"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:13:33 GMT, Lawrence Leung wrote: BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" Simple - you might simply have made a lucky guess the first time. Getting 16 correct out of 20 gives you 95% probability that you are not guessing. BTW, note that if you use a large number of listeners, this probability level means that 1 in 20 of them *will* achieve 16 out of 20 just by random chance! Stewart. Your maths are flawed to get 16 out of 20 is the same 4 out of 5 or 80% NO! To get better than 95% probability that it's not random chance, the required percentage correct drops as the number of trials increases, so that while you need 9 out of 10, you only need 15 out of 20, and this reduces to not much more than 500 out of 1,000 (for the real obsessives!). Yes, it's been pointed out that it should be 15 out of 20, not 16, for better than 95% confidence. That's fine, rules changed accordingly. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
I can't help but say a few more things...
Let's assume all you say about "wire is wire", all speaker cables are the same, there is absolutely no difference among speaker cables as far as listening concern. So forth and so on... If it is such an absolute truth, absolute fact, why there are more and more cable companies in the market? Look, I don't know about other countries, but in the USA, every company has to be responsible to what they claimed their product(s) can do, you just can't make such obvious lie (as you accuse) your speaker cable is such and such. The only reason that I can think of is: whatever test that you or someone propose is not a valid test, or at least the test result is not a valid result! I'm pretty sure that if a test like that is confirmed true, it will simply put the global multi-billion dollars business to a halt, am I right? But so far, we haven't heard of any such kind of confirmation from any "big" name research lab, University, government office, some place that is more "trustable" then a group of people making claim. I'm not saying you are lying, it is just the doubt. Why is $4000? The test can only verify that whether you can or you cannot hear the difference, but it cannot directly prove that these two cables are the same. How many people in the world that will listen to music, or have contacted special speaker cables? How many people had already taken the test? What is the ratio of that? Let say there are altogether one million audiophiles in the world that is or was using special speaker cables (hey, I belive Chung and Pinky used special speaker cables before but since they cannot tell the difference, they gave up using them), and say there had been one thousand of them took the test, all of them fail to tell the difference, OK then, so you can say 1000/1000000=0.1% of the who audiophiles propulation agreed that "wire is wire", but is it enough? You only have 0.1% of the fact that backup your claim, and you then call it evidence? You then call it a fact? You then call it a truth? I would say, promote the test more, wait until you have more than 95%. As Pinky pointed out, you have to have a 95% assurance to prove that one claim is correct. Let me know when will the 95% come, perhaps by then, I will also give up my believe on "speaker cable makes the difference", but before that, 0.1% of doubt will not affect me or the other 99.9% audiophiles in the world. Lawerence Leung |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message news:3qXMb.43729$sv6.118789@attbi_s52... Harry Lavo wrote: As you know from previous discussions Chung there is widespread belief among audiophiles that the test itself is flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts. What else is there? I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a control. Do you not recall? No, I was addressing your immediate post. You were saying that DBT's were "flawed in revealing most audible perceptions other than volume differences, frequency differences, and distortion artifacts". So you are effectively saying that DBT's are good in revealing audible preceptions such as volume differences, frequency differnces and distortion artifacts. Besides those perceptions, what others effects do you have in mind? Especially considering that Mr Leung was talking about cables? Well lets start with timbre, dimensionality, width and depth of soundstage, transparency, microdynamics, macrodynamic freedom, etc etc. And you think these are not caused by frequency responses differences or distortion differences. And seriously, in cables? I think these things can be caused by subtle differences in the passive components used, and in how they and the design itself handle dynamics. In cables, I have heard open ended a difference in perceived soundfield dimensionality, and I have also heard frequency and for want of a better word "grain" abberations. However, I concluded these were (at least one was) a downgrade and rejected one cable and sold the other. I have no idea what may have caused these effects in cables. I am not hung up on cables. Your pervious double-blind proto-monadic proposals are simply irrelevant in this context. My previous discussion relates to proving that dbt's as typically used are the appropriate tool for open-ended evaluation of audio components. Period. Whether we are talking cables, cd players, amplifiers, phono cartridges, or even speakers. The test is good enough for designers like Paradigm, Harmon Kardon, KEF, etc., no? You trust the so-called audiophiles, some of them believing a cable needs to be burned in, or you trust the engineers at Paradigm or KEF, or the designers of codecs? Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called "development". No, the tests were performed because they are the most sensitive in detecting audible differences. Training can definitely increase the sensitivity further. You and others are free to take as much training as you like prior to taking the cable test. Given that the cable differences are so obvious, we would have thought that not much training is required, no? Audible differences that are already known or suspected to exist. Not evaluation of components overall. And this has nothing to do with cables per se. My participation in this thread was based on disagreeing with what Lawrence said about cables. Not really interested in extending it to a general dbt debate: been there, done that, waste of bandwidth. Well, testing cables is a sub-set of testing components. If there are problems with dbt's (or not) they apply equally to cable testing as to other components. So, do you agree with Lawrence that there is a cable theory shared by millions of audiophiles? Or that cables can make a big difference in bass response? No I know of no theory. But one of the cables mentioned above did seem to put a "dynamic clamp" on the bass with the two amplifiers I was testing with (one solid state, one tube). |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
"chris" wrote in message
news:Mo1Nb.49184$8H.101777@attbi_s03... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:13:33 GMT, Lawrence Leung wrote: Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right! No, the entire world body of physicists and electrical engineers is right, and 'audiophiles' tend not to be technically sophisticated - and also tend to be paranoid about 'tweaks'. The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists. Actually, electrical and neurophysiological theory and experimental evidence *does* tell us that differences among cables are at a level which is *far* below audibility. Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your opinion. No, it's a plain fact, and neither you nor anyone else has *ever* been able to show evidence that this is not the case. BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" Simple - you might simply have made a lucky guess the first time. Getting 16 correct out of 20 gives you 95% probability that you are not guessing. BTW, note that if you use a large number of listeners, this probability level means that 1 in 20 of them *will* achieve 16 out of 20 just by random chance! When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. You seem to be missing the point that these are *observations*, not theories. Also, theory suggests that all cables *do* sound the same, so you need to come up with solid *evidence* in rebuttal. You can happily enjoy your what so ever principal, while the others (I tempted to use millions again) are still enjoying the open air of cable world. And you can happily enjoy your *illusion* that cables sound different. The *facts* however, will remain the same. Wire is wire. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Stewart. Your maths are flawed to get 16 out of 20 is the same 4 out of 5 or 80% if you multiply the number of subjects who all complete the tests you still get 80%. just a load more data to crunch. It's always dangerous to correct someone in public. Nevertheless, I should point out that 16 out of 20 is not the same as 4 out of 5, for statistical purposes. Not even close! Norm Strong |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:iO5Nb.45690$Rc4.192754@attbi_s54... In article gi4Nb.55157$8H.104911@attbi_s03, "Harry Lavo" writes: "Audio Guy" wrote in message news:upXMb.43728$sv6.119711@attbi_s52... In article ntMMb.41503$xy6.112391@attbi_s02, "Harry Lavo" writes: . I guess you only read posts that reinforce your prior beliefs? I spent a lot of time here outlining a double-blind proto-monadic test that could serve as a control, explained the test, and explained its value as a control. Do you not recall? I recall that you over and over again promote a single, unduplicated test that you think shows that some of your unfounded critisms of standard DBTs might be valid, yet it had nothing to do with component comparison, much less open-ended, which is often the rallying cry of the anti-DBTers against DBTs. So explain again why *your* test is superior? Thank you for remembering. However, you don't quite remember accurately. The control test I proposed is similar to the Oohashi et al test in that it is evaluative over a range of qualitative factors, done in a relaxed state and environment, and with repeated hearing of full musical excerpts. But it is not a duplicate of the test. The arguments for such tests have been made here for years..long before the Oohashi article was published. He and his researchers apparently reached the same conclusion...that it was a more effective way of testing for the purposes under study...which were semi-open-ended evaluations of the musical reproduction. Double blind, by the way, as was my proposed test. As long as it's double blind I have no problems with it, but I have yet to see you propose any reason for rejecting the current DBTs except that they don't agree with your sighted results. Because the current dbt's seem to work best on picking up simple differences in volume, frequency respond, and unmusical distortion. Nobody hears differences in depth or width of soundstage, differences in timbrel accuracy, especially with dynamic music, etc. These are things that at the top levels of audio are audible and do make a difference. In part this is because these things are not "instataneous". If there is one thing that the Oohashi et al test established (without a doubt, documented in the article) is that *music* as opposed to sound triggers an *emotional* response from the brain that takes 20 secs or so to fully register and be operational. I and others believe that many of the more subtle effects involving high-end audio reproduction of music require this component to be present for full perception. This requires a relaxed, evaluative state (an ability to *describe* the sound, not just note a difference) developed over repeated listening, alternating. This is a far cry from the conventional dbt as practiced. To determine whether or not this is the case is what a control test is required for. Simply saying "it works for codecs, therefore it must be appropriate for high-end audio comparisons of components" is simply not (and has not) going to fly for a large segment of audiophiles. Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best) half-truth ad nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to listen for specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That is called "development". In the food industry we used such tests for color, for texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor characteristics. That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby when you start you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are looking for / simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new component sounds vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason... Yes, because it never ends, and so never gets to a result. This is just retoric and is absolute nonesense! :-( How so, if it is open-ended it seems by definition to not have an end. How do you tell when it has reached the end, when it gets the results you want? Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. I am using open-ended here to mean that you do not know *what* you are listening for, simply trying to evaluate what sounds "most real" or "most right" to you. Then burrowing down from there to trying to analyze why, and then if possible even to more specifics. Very different from being given two (or three) quick samples, maintaining an alert state, and trying to pick a "difference". The test itself can still have "x" numbers of trials although they make take weeks to complete. Most audiophiles don't approach it this rigorously due to time (or loaner) considerations, but the concept is the same. could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is not the best way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be more apparent in more relaxed listening. And again, your only defense is that DBT results don't agree with your opinions. DBTs can and have been done over long periods with relaxed listening, and the results are the same. On Tom's say so and without any detailed description or published data. I'm talking about a rigorous, scientific test of dbt, control proto-mondadic, and sighted open ended testing. With careful sample selection, proctoring, statistical analysis, and peer-reviewed publication. Once that is done I will be happy to accept what conclusions emerge. It hasn't been done, and so *assertiosn* that comparative dbt's such as abx are appropriate is just that, an assertion. It's much more than an assertion, it has data to back it up, unlike your assertions that audio DBTs are just "assertions". No data supported by a control experiment. That is the rub. And no data done in an evaluative state, which is what protomonadic or mondadic testing gives you. The issue isn't so much the blind vs sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while a double blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I outlined) may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not practical for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as audiophiles not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended evaluation, we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a better bet despite possible sighted bias. Again only because you don't agree with the results. Will you please stop saying that. I have no particular stake in this..I am not a proponent of cable differences. I use mostly 12 guage twisted pair in my own system...chosen by sighted listening as offering everything more exotic cables offered that I tested, and better than some. I have an MBA with a strong dose of operations analysis and behavioral psychology...my thinking is pretty disciplined. The inability of the "objectivists" here to acknowledge the primacy of their (your) belief system drives me up the wall. That and the fact that I have twenty years of helping to design and analyze marketing research tests is why I am one of the people here who have challenged the conventional assumptions. But you don't really know what my beliefs are, do you? I actually do know there are differences in audio components because I have performed positive DBTs with components, but since they were not published I doubt they'd be accepted since there were no controls. Because of them I am sure that typical DBTs will show differences when they do exist without needing open-ended proto etc. etc. And I do have an MSEE myself with over twenty years of electronic design experience and know how this stuff works. Now cables on the other hand... Unfortunately, by the "rules" established here by the objectivist contingent, you must present those results as "antecdotes" so officially they don't count. ;-) But on a more serious note, I would be (and I'm sure others would as well) be interested in what you tested and what you found. Of course we've been over this many times here. But obviously you don't even care to acknowledge the issue. There are quite a few issues you obviously don't care to acknowledge yourself, such as JNDs, known bias from knowing a change has been made, etc. How confident are you that you can overcome all of these known biases? Why do you think DBTs were invented? I certainly acknowledge those things. Thats why I propsed a control test along with both dbt and open-end alternative tests. However, barring such a definitive control test, I choose open-end evaluative sighted testing for most purposes in evaluating component, over comparative dbts. I choose it because I believe the type of error that can result is less troublesome. I really doubt that is why you use sighted "evaluation" instead of DBTs. Well believe it or not, that is the reason. |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Lawrence Leung wrote:
I can't help but say a few more things... Let's assume all you say about "wire is wire", all speaker cables are the same, there is absolutely no difference among speaker cables as far as listening concern. So forth and so on... If it is such an absolute truth, absolute fact, why there are more and more cable companies in the market? I seem to receive more and more ads in email about patches or pill that would elongate a certain part of my anatomy. According to your logic, those must really work. Look, I don't know about other countries, but in the USA, every company has to be responsible to what they claimed their product(s) can do, you just can't make such obvious lie (as you accuse) your speaker cable is such and such. They are not lying, striclty speaking, when they say their cable is superior, since they know that it is in the mind of the listener like yourself. If they were to provide evidence, either measurements or DBT's, that the cable does sound more accurate, then perhaps someone can go after them if those evidence turns out to be false. Have you seen measurements or other test results given out by cable companies? The only reason that I can think of is: whatever test that you or someone propose is not a valid test, or at least the test result is not a valid result! The only reason is that there are people like you who depend on sighted testing. That's what cable companies count on. I'm pretty sure that if a test like that is confirmed true, it will simply put the global multi-billion dollars business to a halt, am I right? If only people can only agree on what "confirmed true" means... But so far, we haven't heard of any such kind of confirmation from any "big" name research lab, University, government office, some place that is more "trustable" then a group of people making claim. I'm not saying you are lying, it is just the doubt. Why is $4000? I put in money in the pot, because I would like to see someone like you with a strong belief in a cable's audibility to take the test and either fail, or provide new evidence that there is something about cable sound. BTW, it seems like no matter whether the pot is $4K or $8K, no one really wants to step up. What does that tell you? Here is a chance for tbe cable believers to really shut the engineers up. Think about the glory, if not the money. Think about it another way. Has any big research lab, university, government office, etc. confirmed that Elvis is dead? The test can only verify that whether you can or you cannot hear the difference, but it cannot directly prove that these two cables are the same. Huh? If you cannot hear the difference between two cables, aren't they sonically the same? Or are you referring to other properties of the cable such as looks, price, etc.? How many people in the world that will listen to music, or have contacted special speaker cables? Those who buy expensive cables, maybe a few thousand, or maybe a little above 10K? Those who listen to music, hundreds of millions? What does that ratio tell you? Cable industry is a totally insignificant industry, and it should be so. How many people had already taken the test? A few hundred to a few thousand have probably conducted some kind of blind test at home. Isn't it interesting that you seldom see reports of people passing the cable test, after care is taken to ensure that the test is blind and that level differences have been taken out? What is the ratio of that? Let say there are altogether one million audiophiles in the world that is or was using special speaker cables (hey, I belive Chung and Pinky used special speaker cables before but since they cannot tell the difference, they gave up using them), and say there had been one thousand of them took the test, all of them fail to tell the difference, OK then, so you can say 1000/1000000=0.1% of the who audiophiles propulation agreed that "wire is wire", but is it enough? Your theory is full of holes. The small number of testees simply mean that people in general are not interested in testing cables. They either buy the cables according to hype and to their apparent perception, or are smart enough to realize that cables make such a small difference that they buy whatever is convenient, be it RS, Home Depot, or Monster from the Good Guys. People know that "wire is wire" without needing to have taken the DBT test. Some can really tell there is no difference in a sighted test, and some know from phsycial principles that cables just cannot make the kind of difference you claim. You only have 0.1% of the fact that backup your claim, and you then call it evidence? You then call it a fact? You then call it a truth? I would say, promote the test more, wait until you have more than 95%. As Pinky pointed out, you have to have a 95% assurance to prove that one claim is correct. Let me give you an analogy. You say Elvis is dead. But how many people really have seen Elvis dead and buried? Shouldn't we wait till 95% of all people have seen Elvis's remains before we believe Elvis is dead? How about the fact that no one has aced the DBT for cables after frequency response has been taken out as a factor? I'm not talking about the $4K test, but all the cable blind test audiophiles have taken in their homes and among friends. Let me know when will the 95% come, perhaps by then, I will also give up my believe on "speaker cable makes the difference", but before that, 0.1% of doubt will not affect me or the other 99.9% audiophiles in the world. What is your evidence that 99.9% of the audiophiles have a cable theory that says that cables are significant different in sound? I noticed that I have asked you several times, and you never answered. Lawerence Leung |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
"chung" wrote in message
... My participation in this thread was based on disagreeing with what Lawrence said about cables. Not really interested in extending it to a general dbt debate: been there, done that, waste of bandwidth. So, do you agree with Lawrence that there is a cable theory shared by millions of audiophiles? Or that cables can make a big difference in bass response? Even if I did think that cables made a big difference, the bass region is the LAST place I'd look for it. Of R, L and C, only R makes a difference in the bass. Norm Strong |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news  N5Nb.47664$5V2.65531@attbi_s53...See his text below: As usual you make a serious, reasoned contribution. You make carping a challenge but that's what challenges are for. Once again you show that under "bias controlled" conditions the differences between any and all hi-fi components disappear. That is not new. We already know that listening for experiment results in null-negative responses from the majority of the panel. What is missing are the examples of when and for what your testing has given a positive outcome. Till your tests give * some* positive outcomes the two possibilities remain: 1) everything you tested indeed sounds the same or 2) the nature of your test stops people from hearing differences. You might say that if there are "real", measurable differences the differences will be heard. How about this? You recently wrote an excellent and useful review of subwoofers. They differed measurably All you need to do is to show that a randomly selected panel using a "bias controlled" method (to be defined more rigorously, please) *heard* the differences you measured. Ludovic Mirabel Nousaine said: Sorry to arrive late to the thread. I've been away at the Consumer Electronics Show. I agree with Mr Hughes; except it isn't "our" truth. It's only THE truth. I began bias-controlled listening tests in the late 70s; at home, with no professional financing or backing. I just had an deep curiosity as to what the truth was about sound quality and not necessarily what had been printed in the press or was passed on word-of-mouth by audiophiles, friends and salesmen. The latter curiosity came about precisely because I had once 'tricked' myself about the sound of capacitor dialectric. Implementing bias controls in listening tests is not that difficult and ANY interested party of normal intelligence should have no trouble doing so. Over time I did become financially involved in audio on the evaluation side and have continued to evolve techniques to reduce bias in even open evaluations. I've conducted dozens of bias-controlled tests involving up to 16 weeks of "open-ended" listening, in-home tests, in-salon tests, at Convention tests and every other kind of site that had been claimed to 'improve' sensitivity. Most, of these tests were conducted with my own personal resources (not at the behest of a magazine or other party) and while I have been paid for the publication of some that payment came only AFTER I had already performed the experiment to satisfy my personal curiosity. The practical result is that whenever a "believer" claims a difference (be it wires, amplifiers, cd players, DACs, isolation devices, et al) where there is no confirming known physical differences that lay above the known threshold of human hearing sensitivity NO SINGLE SUBJECT has EVER been able to reliably identify the claimed source when even the most modest of bias-control measures are taken (the least of which was a blanket placed over I/O terminals). No one subject, even in multiple subject experiments, has ever shown an ability to reliably identify wires, parts, bits or amplifiers even in their personal reference systems using their personally selected recordings. Of course, proponents will have all kinds of excuses as to why this has happened and to why the tests were flawed. All subjects agreed in advance (most were paid) that the testing scenario was fair and acceptable. Some argued post-test, but so far, none has ever found a reasonable explanation as to why a 'pretty amazing' difference would suddenly disappear when NOTHING more than the answer sheet was taken down before an answer had to be made. This last thread is pretty interesting in that one poster argued that only ONE trial is necessary and that multiple trials and extended listening would obscure differences. Many of the "other" arguments are that the experiments are too "short". |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
normanstrong wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... My participation in this thread was based on disagreeing with what Lawrence said about cables. Not really interested in extending it to a general dbt debate: been there, done that, waste of bandwidth. So, do you agree with Lawrence that there is a cable theory shared by millions of audiophiles? Or that cables can make a big difference in bass response? Even if I did think that cables made a big difference, the bass region is the LAST place I'd look for it. Of R, L and C, only R makes a difference in the bass. Norm Strong Well, you and I think similarly due to our technical backgrounds. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for the cable companies), most audiophiles are quite clueless when it comes to technical issues. Witness the acceptance of garbage like cables need to be broken in. |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Harry Lavo wrote:
Well lets start with timbre, dimensionality, width and depth of soundstage, transparency, microdynamics, macrodynamic freedom, etc etc. And you think these are not caused by frequency responses differences or distortion differences. And seriously, in cables? I think these things can be caused by subtle differences in the passive components used, and in how they and the design itself handle dynamics. Well, you are not making sense here. If there are subtle differences in passive components, they have to show up in frequency response, distortion or noise measurements. All of those you said DBT's are capable of differentiating. Especially if it's fast A/B switching, and not extended, open-ended evaluation. BTW, active components play a much, much more important role than passives in the resulting sound. Any difference is more likely due to active parts (like poorly designed DAC's) than passive parts. Of course, the modders would like you to think that passives rule... In cables, I have heard open ended a difference in perceived soundfield dimensionality, and I have also heard frequency and for want of a better word "grain" abberations. However, I concluded these were (at least one was) a downgrade and rejected one cable and sold the other. I have no idea what may have caused these effects in cables. I am not hung up on cables. Good to know that you are not one of Lawrence's "millions" .Well, testing cables is a sub-set of testing components. If there are problems with dbt's (or not) they apply equally to cable testing as to other components. You keep *speculating* that there are problems with DBT's used in audio testing. Why not provide some evidence, other than that the results don't agree with sighted testing? Just provide evidence that a measureable difference exceeding JND is not detectible in DBT's, but verifiably detectible in open-ended sighted testing (or any test protocol you care to come up with). If your speculations are true, it should not be too hard to do this, correct? Or provide evidence that your test protocol of choice can reliably detect measureable differences when DBT's fail. So, do you agree with Lawrence that there is a cable theory shared by millions of audiophiles? Or that cables can make a big difference in bass response? No I know of no theory. Sorry, Lawrence, there goes your educated guess that millions of audiophiles share a cable theory . So far Lawrence is the only one whobelieves in a unified cable theory. But one of the cables mentioned above did seem to put a "dynamic clamp" on the bass with the two amplifiers I was testing with (one solid state, one tube). Since there is no technical reason why a cable should affect bass, your concept of "dynamic clamp" is suspicious. That also raises the question of how real are your claims of microdynamics, macrodynamics, dimensionality, etc. Until you can state these in technical terms, I'm afraid that they are not transferrable concepts. |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
"chung" wrote in message
news  qhNb.52763$5V2.65388@attbi_s53...Harry Lavo wrote: Well lets start with timbre, dimensionality, width and depth of soundstage, transparency, microdynamics, macrodynamic freedom, etc etc. And you think these are not caused by frequency responses differences or distortion differences. And seriously, in cables? I think these things can be caused by subtle differences in the passive components used, and in how they and the design itself handle dynamics. Well, you are not making sense here. If there are subtle differences in passive components, they have to show up in frequency response, distortion or noise measurements. All of those you said DBT's are capable of differentiating. Especially if it's fast A/B switching, and not extended, open-ended evaluation. Yes, but not necessarily in the conventional distortion measurements. BTW, active components play a much, much more important role than passives in the resulting sound. Any difference is more likely due to active parts (like poorly designed DAC's) than passive parts. Of course, the modders would like you to think that passives rule... May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. Not much else has changed in amplifiers, for example. And yet the cumulative effect of improved (from a sound standpoint) capacitors and low-noise resistors has been a marked increase in transparency. In cables, I have heard open ended a difference in perceived soundfield dimensionality, and I have also heard frequency and for want of a better word "grain" abberations. However, I concluded these were (at least one was) a downgrade and rejected one cable and sold the other. I have no idea what may have caused these effects in cables. I am not hung up on cables. Good to know that you are not one of Lawrence's "millions" .Well, testing cables is a sub-set of testing components. If there are problems with dbt's (or not) they apply equally to cable testing as to other components. You keep *speculating* that there are problems with DBT's used in audio testing. Why not provide some evidence, other than that the results don't agree with sighted testing? Just follow this thread...I've been forced to repeat the reasons. They've been hashed here (and elsewhere) for a long time. Just provide evidence that a measureable difference exceeding JND is not detectible in DBT's, but verifiably detectible in open-ended sighted testing (or any test protocol you care to come up with). If your speculations are true, it should not be too hard to do this, correct? Or provide evidence that your test protocol of choice can reliably detect measureable differences when DBT's fail. That's the purpose of the control test I proposed. But the shoe should be on the other foot...those of you expousing traditional dbt's as the most valid test need to show that is in fact the case, not just assert it. So, do you agree with Lawrence that there is a cable theory shared by millions of audiophiles? Or that cables can make a big difference in bass response? No I know of no theory. Sorry, Lawrence, there goes your educated guess that millions of audiophiles share a cable theory . So far Lawrence is the only one whobelieves in a unified cable theory. But one of the cables mentioned above did seem to put a "dynamic clamp" on the bass with the two amplifiers I was testing with (one solid state, one tube). Since there is no technical reason why a cable should affect bass, your concept of "dynamic clamp" is suspicious. That also raises the question of how real are your claims of microdynamics, macrodynamics, dimensionality, etc. Until you can state these in technical terms, I'm afraid that they are not transferrable concepts. This is RAHE, not RAT. I describe; you engineers figure out (by investigating) what explains it. That is how progress has always come about in this hobby of ours. |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
chung wrote in news:NEgNb.67259$na.39785@attbi_s04:
I seem to receive more and more ads in email about patches or pill that would elongate a certain part of my anatomy. According to your logic, those must really work. Strictly speaking, those claim works on certain circumstance but not everyone will have the same effect. They are not lying, striclty speaking, when they say their cable is superior, since they know that it is in the mind of the listener like yourself. If they were to provide evidence, either measurements or DBT's, that the cable does sound more accurate, then perhaps someone can go after them if those evidence turns out to be false. Have you seen measurements or other test results given out by cable companies? Yes, I have. A lot of cable companies gave out their L, C, and Q value from their speaker cables and interconnect. I compare those values with the Home Depot zip-cord, they are far higher than the "special" speaker cables. Then, how can you say "wire is wire", "they have no difference", all you need to have is a simple LCR meter. If only people can only agree on what "confirmed true" means... That mean NO!? I put in money in the pot, because I would like to see someone like you with a strong belief in a cable's audibility to take the test and either fail, or provide new evidence that there is something about cable sound. BTW, it seems like no matter whether the pot is $4K or $8K, no one really wants to step up. What does that tell you? Here is a chance for tbe cable believers to really shut the engineers up. Think about the glory, if not the money. Wait a second, you said thousand of people took the test before, and now you said "no one really wants to step up"? Which statement is true? If you set up a test, with significant amount of money award, and not even one show up for the test, does it mean that something wrong with the test? BTW, by saying "no one really wants to step up", that will include you and Pinky and your troops? Think about it another way. Has any big research lab, university, government office, etc. confirmed that Elvis is dead? No, because a lot of people seen his burial, offical already confirmed he is dead. Huh? If you cannot hear the difference between two cables, aren't they sonically the same? Or are you referring to other properties of the cable such as looks, price, etc.? See above. If you cannot hear the difference between two cables, they are sonically the same to you, cannot apply to anyone else. Those who buy expensive cables, maybe a few thousand, or maybe a little above 10K? Those who listen to music, hundreds of millions? What does that ratio tell you? Cable industry is a totally insignificant industry, and it should be so. How many people had already taken the test? A few hundred to a few thousand have probably conducted some kind of blind test at home. Isn't it interesting that you seldom see reports of people passing the cable test, after care is taken to ensure that the test is blind and that level differences have been taken out? That means nobody took the test whatsoever. Your theory is full of holes. The small number of testees simply mean that people in general are not interested in testing cables. They either buy the cables according to hype and to their apparent perception, or are smart enough to realize that cables make such a small difference that they buy whatever is convenient, be it RS, Home Depot, or Monster from the Good Guys. People know that "wire is wire" without needing to have taken the DBT test. Some can really tell there is no difference in a sighted test, and some know from phsycial principles that cables just cannot make the kind of difference you claim. This is only your assumption, and have no solid number backing it up? Again, it is you and your troops always demand the proof, then you have to have solid number to back up your words. Let me give you an analogy. You say Elvis is dead. But how many people really have seen Elvis dead and buried? Shouldn't we wait till 95% of all people have seen Elvis's remains before we believe Elvis is dead? I have no problem believe Elvis is dead, because they doesn't concern me at all! How about the fact that no one has aced the DBT for cables after frequency response has been taken out as a factor? I'm not talking about the $4K test, but all the cable blind test audiophiles have taken in their homes and among friends. That's right, a lot of audiophiles reported that they can tell the difference at home, and you didn't believe it. So, why do you think when anyone do exactly what you require will give a correct answer? BTW, why 20? What makes you think 20 tests is good enough? I said 19, or 21, how's that? Let me know when will the 95% come, perhaps by then, I will also give up my believe on "speaker cable makes the difference", but before that, 0.1% of doubt will not affect me or the other 99.9% audiophiles in the world. What is your evidence that 99.9% of the audiophiles have a cable theory that says that cables are significant different in sound? I noticed that I have asked you several times, and you never answered. I didn't say 99.9% of the audiophiles have a cable theory..., read carefully, please! All I am saying is there is no number or very little data to support the claim. Well, now I know that the test hasn't even been done by anyone, including yourself. Lawernce Leung |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Harry Lavo wrote:
Because the current dbt's seem to work best on picking up simple differences in volume, frequency respond, and unmusical distortion. Nobody hears differences in depth or width of soundstage, differences in timbrel accuracy, especially with dynamic music, etc. These are things that at the top levels of audio are audible and do make a difference. Of course people in blind tests hear differences in depth of soundstage, etc. Where on earth did you come up with that they don't? What you don't seem to understand is that such 'simple' differences can cause them. If a difference is noted, and it correlates with a technical measurement to a valid statistical level, the technical difference most likely caused it. That doesn't mean that there isn't something else causing it, but in the absence of evidence otherwise, the conclusion is unmistakable, unless the study is deliberately designed to be irrational. (snip) Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. I am using open-ended here to mean that you do not know *what* you are listening for, simply trying to evaluate what sounds "most real" or "most right" to you. Then burrowing down from there to trying to analyze why, and then if possible even to more specifics. How do you think musicians learn to play, compose, improvise, etc? They learn what to listen for. They use TECHNIQUES so they can KNOW what they are hearing, imagining, emotions they want to convey, etc. Using your reasoning here, what they do is not 'real' or 'not right to them' because they (if they are at least decent musicians) KNOW what they are listening for and what they want. Same with instrument builders? Are you saying that high end component designers don't (and shouldn't) know what they are listening for and that good musicians shouldn't either? |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Mr. Pinkerton, im am not "strutting" in suggesting the test take place in my
system. This is a fair field for evaluation and i see NO reason why i should put up any money to prove YOUR theory. The idea for the test is yours and the apparent need for "proof" is yours. Furthermore, my beef is with your dogmatic belief that i cannot detect any differences in wires. Well, what proof do YOU provide that i cant? I dont mean other types of studies you tout but a study that I, ME, cannot hear differences in wire in my system? In addition, i can spell "intelligence" just fine. It is a pity you cannot refrain from making gratuitous disparaging comments to fellow audiophiles. Perhaps one day you will make a mistake? -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
its Exactly the same
"normanstrong" wrote in message
It's always dangerous to correct someone in public. Nevertheless, I should point out that 16 out of 20 is not the same as 4 out of 5, for statistical purposes. Not even close! Norm Strong I'm sorry Norm it is EXACTLY the SAME. the proportional chances of right or wrong answers are the same. 16/20 is the same ratio as 4/5 Just ask any Turf Accountant. He would been seen dead writing 16/20 on his board. |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
(Audio Guy) wrote:
You still have yet to show why audio DBTs as typically practiced are not valid tests. What is it that makes you so sure that they aren't? It still boils down to "their results don't agree with (my) sighted evaluations". If this is not true, please explain. Ok, let's put aside the "DBTs don't agree with my sighted results" for a moment. This is a question for all of those advocating DBTs for audio equipment comparisons - "How do you know DBTs work - i.e. do not get in the way of identifying subtle audible differences - when they are used for audio equipment comparisons using music?" After all, most all of the published results we've seen are null. If your only answer is that you *believe* they work here because they are used (differently) in research or psychometrics, that is not good enough. Your belief in DBTs would seem to be based on a 'belief system' rather than actual evidence. Right? If your answer is that you believe in science and DBTs are scientific, that also is not sufficient. Where is your verifying test, or scientific proof that they work in the way you are advocating their use? Not who else uses them or who elses believes they work, but *proof* that they work here in this area and don't obscure subtle details, or any information for that matter. Don't have any verifying test or proof but you still believe? That's fine. Believe what you want. Just don't try to convince anyone else on such flimsy grounds. Give it up. Your arguements are not convincing any on the other side - any more than ours are convincing you. Regards, Mike |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in news:NEgNb.67259$na.39785@attbi_s04: I seem to receive more and more ads in email about patches or pill that would elongate a certain part of my anatomy. According to your logic, those must really work. Strictly speaking, those claim works on certain circumstance but not everyone will have the same effect. Wow, you and I have such different concepts of reality that it is fairly difficult for us to objectively debate anymore... Just out of curiosity, on what circumstances do these pills or patches work? What are the effects of the patch? They are not lying, striclty speaking, when they say their cable is superior, since they know that it is in the mind of the listener like yourself. If they were to provide evidence, either measurements or DBT's, that the cable does sound more accurate, then perhaps someone can go after them if those evidence turns out to be false. Have you seen measurements or other test results given out by cable companies? Yes, I have. A lot of cable companies gave out their L, C, and Q value from their speaker cables and interconnect. A "Q" value for cables and interconnects? Yet, when you use those provided values, and calculate what effect it has on sound, you come up with the same answer: No Detectible Difference! I compare those values with the Home Depot zip-cord, they are far higher than the "special" speaker cables. Then, how can you say "wire is wire", "they have no difference", all you need to have is a simple LCR meter. If only people can only agree on what "confirmed true" means... That mean NO!? That means there will be believers who will never agree about the validity of any scientific testing applied to cables, whether DBT's or measurements. I put in money in the pot, because I would like to see someone like you with a strong belief in a cable's audibility to take the test and either fail, or provide new evidence that there is something about cable sound. BTW, it seems like no matter whether the pot is $4K or $8K, no one really wants to step up. What does that tell you? Here is a chance for tbe cable believers to really shut the engineers up. Think about the glory, if not the money. Wait a second, you said thousand of people took the test before, and now you said "no one really wants to step up"? Please read carefully, I said many have tried blind testing at home to convince themselves that cables don't make any difference in their system. No one has stepped up to the $4K cable challenge test. Which statement is true? If you set up a test, with significant amount of money award, and not even one show up for the test, does it mean that something wrong with the test? BTW, by saying "no one really wants to step up", that will include you and Pinky and your troops? Think about it another way. Has any big research lab, university, government office, etc. confirmed that Elvis is dead? No, because a lot of people seen his burial, offical already confirmed he is dead. Well, maybe those in universities and labs have already figured out the effects of cables on sound (such as bass), and knew that it couldn't possibly make any difference? Huh? If you cannot hear the difference between two cables, aren't they sonically the same? Or are you referring to other properties of the cable such as looks, price, etc.? See above. If you cannot hear the difference between two cables, they are sonically the same to you, cannot apply to anyone else. How about to you? If you cannot hear the difference between two cables, are they the same to you? Those who buy expensive cables, maybe a few thousand, or maybe a little above 10K? Those who listen to music, hundreds of millions? What does that ratio tell you? Cable industry is a totally insignificant industry, and it should be so. How many people had already taken the test? A few hundred to a few thousand have probably conducted some kind of blind test at home. Isn't it interesting that you seldom see reports of people passing the cable test, after care is taken to ensure that the test is blind and that level differences have been taken out? That means nobody took the test whatsoever. How do you come to that conclusion? Did you read the MaIntosh link I referred you to earlier? Your theory is full of holes. The small number of testees simply mean that people in general are not interested in testing cables. They either buy the cables according to hype and to their apparent perception, or are smart enough to realize that cables make such a small difference that they buy whatever is convenient, be it RS, Home Depot, or Monster from the Good Guys. People know that "wire is wire" without needing to have taken the DBT test. Some can really tell there is no difference in a sighted test, and some know from phsycial principles that cables just cannot make the kind of difference you claim. This is only your assumption, and have no solid number backing it up? Again, it is you and your troops always demand the proof, then you have to have solid number to back up your words. I am beginning to think that there will never be a solid enough number for you... Let me give you an analogy. You say Elvis is dead. But how many people really have seen Elvis dead and buried? Shouldn't we wait till 95% of all people have seen Elvis's remains before we believe Elvis is dead? I have no problem believe Elvis is dead, because they doesn't concern me at all! Same reason why most people do not take cable DBT tests. How about the fact that no one has aced the DBT for cables after frequency response has been taken out as a factor? I'm not talking about the $4K test, but all the cable blind test audiophiles have taken in their homes and among friends. That's right, a lot of audiophiles reported that they can tell the difference at home, and you didn't believe it. Uhhh, because of well-known effects of expectation bias, and what we know about the physical principles of how cables work? For example, if you move your listening position 6 inches, you will experience a bigger change in bass response than any two nominally competent cables can give you. So, why do you think when anyone do exactly what you require will give a correct answer? BTW, why 20? What makes you think 20 tests is good enough? I said 19, or 21, how's that? People like to see a 95% confidence. You can of course do more than 20. If you do less than 20, you need to get a higher percentage right. No, one out of one does not cut it. Let me know when will the 95% come, perhaps by then, I will also give up my believe on "speaker cable makes the difference", but before that, 0.1% of doubt will not affect me or the other 99.9% audiophiles in the world. What is your evidence that 99.9% of the audiophiles have a cable theory that says that cables are significant different in sound? I noticed that I have asked you several times, and you never answered. I didn't say 99.9% of the audiophiles have a cable theory..., read carefully, please! You said 99.9% of the audiophiles believe speaker cable makes the kind of difference you think you hear, no? If not, how many audiophiles share the same cable theory as you? All I am saying is there is no number or very little data to support the claim. Well, now I know that the test hasn't even been done by anyone, including yourself. No one has taken the $4K challenge yet. What does that tell you? Lawernce Leung |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Harry Lavo wrote:
If there is one thing that the Oohashi et al test established (without a doubt, documented in the article) is that *music* as opposed to sound triggers an *emotional* response from the brain that takes 20 secs or so to fully register and be operational. This is utter hogwash. IF Oohashi proved anything (and that is a huge if), it is only that ultrahigh frequency noise in combination with music produces some delayed reaction in the brain. I and others believe that many of the more subtle effects involving high-end audio reproduction of music require this component to be present for full perception. But, according to Oohashi himself, it is NOT present in any consumer-grade audio system. So, even if you were right about the weaknesses of standard DBTs, Oohashi provides no basis for believing that they are insufficient for comparing consumer audio components. snip But you don't think a test showing that proto-monadic evaluation showed statistically significant differences where simple dbt'ng did not, would not get published. Sure it would, if it happened. But I don't think any perceptual psychologist would waste his time trying, because a proto-monadic test is so obviously a terrible way to test for audibility. (It produces too many false negatives to be a reliable test.) Even Oohashi didn't make that claim for it. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Here is the test. You sit in your own listening room and select a familiar cut
such as "Green Earings" from Steely Dan. After the song finishes you leave the room and have someone switch cables. You listen again to the same song. Sound identical? Then you leave the room again and switch to a different set of cables. Repeat the song. Sound different in any way? The contention is that if you replace cable after cable from Kimber PBJs to Nordost Valhallas there must be no detectable difference in the song. It would be as if you had the CD player on replay. NO differences at all in any of these cables, no matter what cables or how many or what manufacturer. The sound the comes out of your speakers is identical regardless. This is Mr. Pinkerton's assertion. My assertion is that i CAN detect a difference in the sound reaching my ears from the different cables. The sound of the same song is changed somehow. That is the only way to interpret cables since no one "hears" a cable, only the sound that comes out of the speakers. Is the sound of the song changed in any way or not? I say it is. I think most audiophiles would agree with me. Otherwise, every cable on planet Earth makes no difference at all. They all produce identical sound and we are all fools falling for marketing hype. -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Lawrence Leung wrote:
I can't help but say a few more things... Let's assume all you say about "wire is wire", all speaker cables are the same, there is absolutely no difference among speaker cables as far as listening concern. So forth and so on... If it is such an absolute truth, absolute fact, why there are more and more cable companies in the market? Because there's gold in them thar hills! Seriously - marketing and big potential markups. It's no different than the flim-flam for the Slick-50 and other engine treatments. They hype and some people believe it. |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
RBernst929 wrote:
Here is the test. You sit in your own listening room and select a familiar cut such as "Green Earings" from Steely Dan. After the song finishes you leave the room and have someone switch cables. You listen again to the same song. Sound identical? Then you leave the room again and switch to a different set of cables. Repeat the song. Sound different in any way? The contention is that if you replace cable after cable from Kimber PBJs to Nordost Valhallas there must be no detectable difference in the song. It would be as if you had the CD player on replay. NO differences at all in any of these cables, no matter what cables or how many or what manufacturer. The sound the comes out of your speakers is identical regardless. There is much more difference caused by changes in the exact listening location, then by changes in cables. So be careful. This is Mr. Pinkerton's assertion. My assertion is that i CAN detect a difference in the sound reaching my ears from the different cables. The sound of the same song is changed somehow. That is the only way to interpret cables since no one "hears" a cable, only the sound that comes out of the speakers. Is the sound of the song changed in any way or not? I say it is. So you are saying that if I replace the cable, then tell you the cable has been replaced, you can tell the sound is now different? What's wrong with this picture? Now try something a little more challenging. I don't tell you if the cable has been changed. You tell me which one of two cables is being played, without looking at the cable. I think most audiophiles would agree with me. Unfortunately just having someone agree with you does not mean you are right. Otherwise, every cable on planet Earth makes no difference at all. No, you can have differences if the cables are really different, like comparing bell-wire cable vs 12 ga. cable in a long run. They all produce identical sound and we are all fools falling for marketing hype. There are a lot of fools falling for marketing hype. -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Mkuller wrote:
"How do you know DBTs work - i.e. do not get in the way of identifying subtle audible differences - when they are used for audio equipment comparisons using music?" After all, most all of the published results we've seen are null. If your only answer is that you *believe* they work here because they are used (differently) in research or psychometrics, that is not good enough. You make the fallacious assumption that DBTs are used "differently" in research. They are used in exactly the same way, with exactly the same methodologies and protocols. They have even been used with music by researchers. (There are whole academic treatises on hearing and music. Just how do you think the authors conducted their research?) Those methods have passed muster in the scientific community. If you want to claim that comparing consumer audio gear is somehow different, you must not only explain how it is different, but also provide some evidence that--or at least a plausible hypothesis for why--this alleged difference would make the test invalid. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...tmail/es2&ST=1 |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
|
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
weakest Link in the Chain
Here is the test. You sit in your own listening room and select a familiar
cut such as "Green Earings" from Steely Dan. After the song finishes you leave the room and have someone switch cables. You listen again to the same song. Sound identical? Then you leave the room again and switch to a different set of cables. Repeat the song. Sound different in any way? The contention is that if you replace cable after cable from Kimber PBJs to Nordost Valhallas there must be no detectable difference in the song. It would be as if you had the CD player on replay. NO differences at all in any of these cables, no matter what cables or how many or what manufacturer. The sound the comes out of your speakers is identical regardless. This is Mr. Pinkerton's assertion. My assertion is that i CAN detect a difference in the sound reaching my ears from the different cables. The sound of the same song is changed somehow. That is the only way to interpret cables since no one "hears" a cable, only the sound that comes out of the speakers. Is the sound of the song changed in any way or not? I say it is. I think most audiophiles would agree with me. Otherwise, every cable on planet Earth makes no difference at all. They all produce identical sound and we are all fools falling for marketing hype. -Bob Bernstein. Well that makes for an easy test if you have a friend who can help. You can even do it DB. Use two cables that you think sound different. Listen to the first one then leave the room. Have your friend flip a coin heads he changes cables tails he doesn't. Then have the friend leave the room. you come back in and listen. decide if the cables were changed or not. Repeat this 20 times. have your friend mark every trial as different or the same. You mark every trial different or the same. both keep track seperately. Of course the cables must be out of sight. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Gallons of Snake Oil | Audio Opinions | |||
| Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. | High End Audio | |||
| cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
| Digital Audio Cable Question(s) | High End Audio | |||
| science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
