Cardas Myrtle Wood Blocks

[Sovkiller]

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

sorry, but the big scary science words are simple statistics terms. from a statistical standpoint, you did little (actually nothing) in terms of showing that there is any validity to your test. Your findings, though admirable, have absolutely no (zero) statistical significance due to your miniscule sample size, no repeatability, and flawed experimental design - and therefore have no relevance to a population (actually, any population). sorry, but your claims of "blind testing" are "scientifically" unfounded, and by applying your own rules, your opinions have absolutely no relevance here. this is simple Statistics 101.

You've been pretty adamant about your position that, unless "blind tested," any differences between audio components are simply subjective. Well, I hate to break it to you, but you've essentially fallen into simple subjective (not objective) conclusions due to the fact that your findings (with regards to any of your gear) have no significance to any group of people. please, don't muddy the clear waters of valid science with your attempts at pseudo-scientific exploits masquerading as some sort of "rule". you're only making yourself out to be someone with a lot of steadfast (and often misinformed) opinions, and little actual experience. It's a good idea not to bring up ABX or double blind, or simple blind experiments unless you actually have some actual experience conducting them and analyzing the results. Hence, the sticky at the top of this forum.

pot, meet kettle.

We all have heard those same arguments before, time after time...So my next question is: Would you mind to propose then any valid methodology for an acceptable DBT for the believers?

Since I joined Head-fi, a few years ago, the believers never had accepted any methodology, for any blind test, I have heard off proposed by the skeptics, of course in all cases I have heard off, they have failed miserably (and no, I will not bother in trying to post the experiments, or trying to find them, if you want, do a search here and they will pop up) and the only thing they ask is for a truly scientific and statistically valid test, well now is your turn, provide one that will satisfy both fields, I think that the skeptics will have no objection in accepting any gladly, at the end we do not need to prove anything, is you who had to prove that those differences exist, and if you are really able to identify them....

[Sovkiller]

Originally Posted by vcoheda

soon, all this nonsense will be over.

The discussion probably will be over that is true, OTOH the nonsense will be just confined to one forum...

[yotacowboy]

Originally Posted by monolith

My opinions that blind tests are worthwhile and should be done is steadfast because it's correct.

ha!!!! prove it!!! prove to me you are without a doubt 100% correct. you screwed around between classes, with no level matching, and now I and anyone else around here is supposed to believe that you are "correct" and that your specific amp is "better" than another? Or any piece of audio gear MUST be "blind tested" by your half-assed standards to warrant any credibility? scientifically!!! you're hilarious. dude, seriously. just stop posting... lol.

[yotacowboy]

Originally Posted by Sovkiller

We all have heard those same arguments before, time after time...So my next question is: Would you mind to propose then any valid methodology for an acceptable DBT for the believers?

Since I joined Head-fi, a few years ago, the believers never had accepted any methodology, for any blind test, I have heard off proposed by the skeptics, of course in all cases I have heard off, they have failed miserably (and no, I will not bother in trying to post the experiments, or trying to find them, if you want, do a search here and they will pop up) and the only thing they ask is for a truly scientific and statistically valid test, well now is your turn, provide one that will satisfy both fields, I think that the skeptics will have no objection in accepting any gladly, at the end we do not need to prove anything, is you who had to prove that those differences exist, and if you are really able to identify them....

seriously? i think my time is better spent enjoying my rig. it's about the music, right? You guys are hilarious...

oh, and remind me to never buy anything from rudistor... i'm just following the rules of trustworthiness... lol...

[vcoheda]

Originally Posted by Sovkiller

The discussion probably will be over that is true, OTOH the nonsense will be just confined to one forum...

well one of the groups is clearly insane.

[monolith]

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

ha!!!! prove it!!! prove to me you are without a doubt 100% correct. you screwed around between classes, with no level matching, and now I and anyone else around here is supposed to believe that you are "correct" and that your specific amp is "better" than another? Or any piece of audio gear MUST be "blind tested" by your half-assed standards to warrant any credibility? scientifically!!! you're hilarious. dude, seriously. just stop posting... lol.

I level matched to where I couldn't tell the difference in volume. I never said or tried to figure out if my amp was better than other amps.

I encourage you to reread my last post. It's worded pretty clearly with respect to the standard to which I hold what I did. I'm not sure I used the word "scientific" anywhere. Nothing has to be tested my standard. It'd be nice if stuff was tested the way I did or better, since what I did is a lot more than what most do.

Anyway, why would I have to prove that blind tests are worthwhile? Do you know what they are? You seem to be a worse troll than most.

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

seriously? i think my time is better spent enjoying my rig. it's about the music, right? You guys are hilarious...

oh, and remind me to never buy anything from rudistor... i'm just following the rules of trustworthiness... lol...

Then again, judging by this you might be illiterate. If he had said that you should buy a Rudistor product his opinion might be questionable, sure.

[LawnGnome]

Originally Posted by vcoheda

well one of the groups is clearly insane.

I wonder if it's the group who believes in magic wood and wish granting cables.

[colonelkernel8]

You know what guise? Since you have had so much success with these awesome pieces of Cardas wood in tightening up the bass and clearing up the mids and highs in your gear, I just ordered 5 full sets for my system!!!!!11

[yotacowboy]

Originally Posted by monolith

I level matched to where I couldn't tell the difference in volume.

Unless you put a zero'd DMM on the outputs while playing pink or white noise, you didn't "level match" a damn thing. You've successfully used a subjective method in your after-school-special, "Fisher-Price: My First Single-Blind Experiment". No repeatability, no rigor, you've accomplished nothing beyond proving my point... your opinions about "blind testing" are misinformed.

Originally Posted by monolith

Nothing has to be tested my standard. It'd be nice if stuff was tested the way I did or better, since what I did is a lot more than what most do.

What you did is the EXACT THING WHICH YOU ARGUE AGAINST. You preformed a SUBJECTIVE test of the affect of an amp. Don't kid yourself, there is absolutely nothing objective about your methods and standards for "blind testing".

I wonder what George Cardas has to say about some little wooden blocks, "blind testing" and the effects of certain types of wood in electro-mechanical systems... 3/4's of the way down the page.

Cardas Audio

Oops!!! I almost forgot... he's UNTRUSTWORTHY, it's a RULE!!! He's a fraud!! He's a witch!!!

Originally Posted by monolith

Anyway, why would I have to prove that blind tests are worthwhile? Do you know what they are?

Well, I've been told that a blind test is when you screw around between classes, without level matching, with a couple of low-resolution/compressed audio files, to see if amps make a difference. Otherwise (in the real world...) they are an experimental design which intends to remove participant bias (or the bias of the experimenter, or the statistician, or all three). Unfortunately, in your case, "removing bias" seems to be nearly impossible.

Originally Posted by monolith

You seem to be a worse troll than most.

Now, now, son... no name-calling. I'm sorry, if by "troll" you mean someone who:

a) *might* have more experience in human factors experiments and statistics than you

b) is tired of your pointless and misinformed drivel

c) is open minded enough to think that in our complex natural world, there may be phenomena that I don't fully understand, but may still experience without being "blind tested"

Originally Posted by monolith

judging by this you might be illiterate

Yup, you got me. I'm illiterate.

[yotacowboy]

Originally Posted by Sovkiller

Would you mind to propose then any valid methodology for an acceptable DBT for the believers?

Here's one of the textbooks I've found useful, if you're inclined to do a little reading:

Amazon.com: A Practical Guide to Usability Testing: Books: Joseph S. Dumas,Janice C. Redish

The nicest thing about this book is that it provides step by step guides for conducting valid usability experiments, creating and using mXn matrices for experimental design, both objective and subjective analysis, and is not limited to somewhat esoteric single, double and triple blind experiments. Enjoy!

[bigshot]

Are there any online resources you'd recommend?

See ya
Steve

[yotacowboy]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Are there any online resources you'd recommend?

See ya
Steve

Haven't really looked, but this text (along with Amazon.com: Human Factors In Engineering and Design: Books: Mark S Sanders,Ernest J McCormick ) are pretty common undergraduate level ISE textbooks. You might be able to find them at the library.

[monolith]

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

Unless you put a zero'd DMM on the outputs while playing pink or white noise, you didn't "level match" a damn thing. You've successfully used a subjective method in your after-school-special, "Fisher-Price: My First Single-Blind Experiment". No repeatability, no rigor, you've accomplished nothing beyond proving my point... your opinions about "blind testing" are misinformed.

I level matched to where I couldn't tell the difference in volume, and I did do it with pink noise. Could I have done it more precisely? Obviously.

My opinions about blind testing aren't misinformed. The way I carried one out was unrigorous. If people did what I did (or better, ideally), I'd be happier than if they did nothing.

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

What you did is the EXACT THING WHICH YOU ARGUE AGAINST. You preformed a SUBJECTIVE test of the affect of an amp. Don't kid yourself, there is absolutely nothing objective about your methods and standards for "blind testing".

I wonder what George Cardas has to say about some little wooden blocks, "blind testing" and the effects of certain types of wood in electro-mechanical systems... 3/4's of the way down the page.

Cardas Audio

Oops!!! I almost forgot... he's UNTRUSTWORTHY, it's a RULE!!! He's a fraud!! He's a witch!!!

Q: Hey, have you ever blind tested your cables?
A: Yeah there was this one time where we did. It was totally double blind. No really.

Of course he's untrustworthy. He's turning a profit that might depend on the answer to that question.

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

Well, I've been told that a blind test is when you screw around between classes, without level matching, with a couple of low-resolution/compressed audio files, to see if amps make a difference. Otherwise (in the real world...) they are an experimental design which intends to remove participant bias (or the bias of the experimenter, or the statistician, or all three). Unfortunately, in your case, "removing bias" seems to be nearly impossible.

Some files were high bitrate mp3s, some lossless. If they're the same for both the A and the B it doesn't matter anyway. Lossless should just make it easier. The design removed enough bias to where I was satisfied. You can certainly fault statistical significance and inexact level matching. Oh, and yes, I should have said that I only believe blind tests apply to seeing if amps make a difference. Nothing else can be blind tested, and no blind tests can be carried out at times other than between E/M theory and advanced physics lab. I also wholeheartedly believe that no blind test in which levels have been matched is valid.

Originally Posted by yotacowboy

Now, now, son... no name-calling. I'm sorry, if by "troll" you mean someone who:

a) *might* have more experience in human factors experiments and statistics than you

b) is tired of your pointless and misinformed drivel

c) is open minded enough to think that in our complex natural world, there may be phenomena that I don't fully understand, but may still experience without being "blind tested"

a) You probably do.
b) None of that here. Dodged a bullet on that one.
c) I share this view.

[UseName]

Originally Posted by fordgtlover

Just to clarify, a placebo is something that has no supporting categorical evidence for its effectiveness, but actually serves its intended purpose (or part thereof) because the consumer believes that it will be effective.

So, the placebo effect actually does do something. It convinces us that it works.

Equally, there is the opposite effect where regardless of supporting evidence the consumer believes that the object or treatment will not be effective; and they are often proven correct - even with clinically proven medicines.

The problem with the cable or other improvement argument is that if you believe, then you probably hear an improvement. However, if you disbelieve - rather than are open-minded, you won't hear a difference.

The two opposing sides will never meet in the middle because they are on two different continuums.

OR they will meet when DBT are encouranged and conducted. This is how clinically proven medicines get proven in the first place.

It's not like these tests are expensive either. They can be time consuming but certainly no more time consuming than reviewing 22 power cables.

[Uncle Erik]

Yotacowboy, I'll take your word that you are experienced with testing. What kind of tests would you suggest, rather that DBT?

There is value even in failed tests. You can rule things out and use that to develop new tests. Science is not about throwing your hands up and saying that something exists but that it's just too much trouble to figure out why it does. Shift your focus from yes/no to why/how. If you're certain that wood blocks and cables make noticeable and surprisingly similar differences with every piece of gear (no matter how it is constructed or the components it uses), then use your considerable skills, education and training to figure out why it is happening and how it works. That's all we ask.

The point of science is to understand what is. If you hear differences with wood blocks and cables, aren't you the least bit curious how that works? Don't you want to know more? I find amps very interesting, so I've picked up a lot of books and really enjoy building them. When I find something mysterious, I figure out what's going on. Why not the same with cables? Why not learn how they work?