New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by b0dhi

Quote: Originally Posted by hallo84 The limitations of the available studies, however, do not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the effects of SMF on the described endpoints. There are acute effects but no proof that sustained damage is caused. Given what evidence does exist, most sensible people would agree that the best thing to do is err on the side of caution.
Quote: Originally Posted by Shark_Jump Could you give the impression that one of the cables has an 'error' in it. Therby encouraging a response. Yes, this is one of the methods used. Wavoman has made some excellent posts on this topic over the years, I definitely recommend checking those out.
Quote: Originally Posted by Shark_Jump Sure, but you can check to see if this is an issue as part setting up the experiment. Just like you should for the other components of the analysis set up. Yes, this is what I was advocating.
Quote: Originally Posted by Shark_Jump How about splitting the light signal and testing two identical lengths of different toslink cables simultaneously. One would need to be careful about how one does this. Distributing a signal down two conductors of different length could, depending on how/whether they're terminated, result in much decreased signal integrity. At least, this is the case with electrical conductors. It might be the same for...
Quote: Originally Posted by eucariote With all due respect (there's lots- your posts are great)- I wonder if a test of digital cables is a good investment of your time. All but the most confused audiophiles (and every engineer and computer scientist) agree that digital signals don't degrade and reproduce perfectly. This is true except for the fact that SPDIF/Toslink aren't just "digital signals" in the normally understood sense. They carry...
Quote: Originally Posted by eucariote ^ If the tester is truly blind to the source, visual cues, preconceptions etc. won't have an influence. More importantly, if enough samples are taken to eliminate a type I (<5% chance of false positive) or type II error (<5% chance of false negative), hypothesis testing is designed to eliminate the effects of chance variation. If the tester is blind to the source, and can choose the better headphone/cable, etc. with...
Quote: Originally Posted by Sophonax I can't imagine why the volume knob would go from negative dB to positive dB though...doesn't make much sense to me. The manual says: Quote: The VOLUME control is calibrated in a relative dB scale that references the input level. The 0dB set- ting is around the two o’clock position, where the input signal is led to the output with an unaltered level (unity gain).
This thread makes me happy to be using these babies.
Quote: Originally Posted by Shark_Jump Yes, I am not arguing this. I was just stating that if the ABX listening test is designed correctly then placebo should no impact on the final result of the test. I'm not sure if this is true. The listener can't get a significant result due to placebo in an ABX. ABX guards against this. However, it's possible that the listener believes they can't hear a difference (whether they can or not), and their...
Quote: There's a lengthy discussion of the results, but in short, no one could tell what they were listening to. A few correct answers, but everything ended up statistically insignificant. If I've understood this, each person had exactly one guess at what the cable was? If that's the case, you can't say that "no one could tell what they were listening to", only that "the group couldn't tell what they were listening to".
New Posts  All Forums: