New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blind Cable Taste Test RESULTS! - Page 14

post #196 of 578
Is someone trying to argue that audiophiles *aren't* crazy?! Because I don't know many audiophiles who would go so far as to say that!

See ya
Steve
post #197 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDobs
The REAL question is, are we all humble enough to accept a new test and the results that come from it?
Depends. Depends on how good the test is, i.e., whether it is designed in such a way to address the concerns of those who often have difficulty with such tests. Obviously, the test needs to be different from the test at issue in this thread, as the obvious shortcomings of that test have been pointed out, in terms of providing proof of whether there are audible differences between cables.

You also just have to accept that fact that no test is going to be perfect, and there are going to be shortcomings in any test. For example, let's say Fred says he can hear a difference between brand X cable and brand Y cable in his system, based on an extended period of listening with each cable. If Fred does not participate in the test, you will not convince Fred, no matter how good the test is, that he doesn't hear differences in his system between the aforementioned cables. Fred will undoubtedly not accept the test results, as he knows what he hears.

Even if Fred does participate, and the test involves whether Fred and others can hear the difference between cable Z and cable T, the fact that Fred and others can't distinguish these cables does not mean that Fred cannot hear the difference between cable X and Y in his system. Of course, the fact that nobody can distinguish between cable Z and T may be relevant and highly probative on the ultimate question (do diffferent cables sound different), but it doesn't conclusively establish that there are no audible differences between any cables in any system. To put it another way, a properly designed test can be very useful in advancing the discussion, but it is probably impossible to design a perfect test that nobody on either side could not take some issue with. That doesn't mean we should not do it; it just means that we should have realistic expectations, and that we should listen to suggestions regarding possible limitations of any proposed design.

IMO, we also need to design the test so that participants have a long enough time to make proper evaluations. Many believe that differences among cables, amps, etc. are revealed only after an extended period of listening and familiarity (perhaps encompassing a week or more of time) with each item being tested. before switching to the other item. The test needs to account for this phenomenon.

Finally, I would suggest a comparison among several different cables, which would include duplicates of the same cable perhaps, to make the results more meaningful.
post #198 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
Depends. Depends on how good the test is, i.e., whether it is designed in such a way to address the concerns of those who often have difficulty with such tests. Obviously, the test needs to be different from the test at issue in this thread, as the obvious shortcomings of that test have been pointed out, in terms of providing proof of whether there are audible differences between cables.

Finally, I would suggest a comparison among several different cables, which would include duplicates of the same cable perhaps, to make the results more meaningful.
I suggest you have listed the reasons why a test acceptable to you will never be done. The cost would be considerable, and looking at the time it took Edwoods much simpler test to be done, we could be looking at 4-5 years. And even then there is no guarantee that the results would be accepted. There is the problem of the old fallback of it does not matter what the cables sound like in his system, because mine is different (better, what-ever).
Who would sponser such a test? Cable companies? HiFi mags? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Fat chance, two of the three have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
On a positive note, this thread has not nearly as nasty as I expected it to be.
post #199 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danamr
I suggest you have listed the reasons why a test acceptable to you will never be done. The cost would be considerable, and looking at the time it took Edwoods much simpler test to be done, we could be looking at 4-5 years. And even then there is no guarantee that the results would be accepted. There is the problem of the old fallback of it does not matter what the cables sound like in his system, because mine is different (better, what-ever).
Who would sponser such a test? Cable companies? HiFi mags? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Fat chance, two of the three have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
On a positive note, this thread has not nearly as nasty as I expected it to be.
Same here, I was expecting far more mud battle, but it was very civvilized, if you ask me, or the cables believers gave up, or they are not very argumentative nowadays...

But honestly I don't know how this test took so long, IIRC the data is from only 14 persons, unless far more had participated and the data was lost, or not reported...IIRC each person was asked to have the cables for a week, now add another week for shipping turnaround, and you are facing about 28 weeks. To be on the conservative side, let's add another 28 weeks, that is around a year IIRC, so I don't know how the other year came into the equation...
post #200 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller
the data is from only 14 persons,
Wow, I had the impression that it was around 100.
post #201 of 578
n/m
post #202 of 578
The only way to detect differences between two very similar sounds is direct A/B switching at precisely matched volume levels. Ears become accustomed to sounds and after a minute or two of listening to one sample, there's no way to know what the other sample sounded like any more. "Allowing ears to burn in" is just another way of saying, "waiting for the placebo effect to cut in". If you can't hear a difference with balanced A/B switching in five minutes, you aren't going to be able to hear it after two weeks either.

What kind of test do we need to construct to prove that the sky is blue and the grass is green? Some things in this world actually are self-evident. The question of whether high end cables can improve sound quality has been answered a thousand times with a thousand different tests. Every time the results are questioned with the same non-specific, anecdotal testimonials and circular logical arguments about testing methods.

If you look at this simple informal test and still think that hundred dollar cables sound better than Radio Shack cables, Sir Isaac Newton, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein and the entire staff of NASA couldn't convince you otherwise. Enjoy how your cables make you happy, and the rest of us will enjoy how we spend our money on our own chosen variety of extravagence. For me, I would rather spend too much money on a sweet little parlor guitar or a ukulele than to spend it on wires. But to each his own.

See ya
Steve
post #203 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
<Snip>
But to each his own.

See ya
Steve
Steve, I don't disagree with this at all, but was this really necessary? We all know where each side stands, there is no reason to provoke a flaming contest.
post #204 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
The only way to detect differences between two very similar sounds is direct A/B switching at precisely matched volume levels. Ears become accustomed to sounds and after a minute or two of listening to one sample, there's no way to know what the other sample sounded like any more. "Allowing ears to burn in" is just another way of saying, "waiting for the placebo effect to cut in". If you can't hear a difference with balanced A/B switching in five minutes, you aren't going to be able to hear it after two weeks either.
I just love these kind of ipse dixits and absolute pronouncements you make. Here's one back at ya. You are just flat wrong on this point. Familiarity with a certain sound or series of sounds as a result of long term exposure to the sound is something that can enable someone to determine the sound is different when something is changed. It is the A/B switching every 5 minutes that may fail to reveal differences that exist, especially when the test is conducted under the type of stressful conditions that are almost destined to produce failure.
post #205 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danamr
We all know where each side stands, there is no reason to provoke a flaming contest.
Unless that is what his purpose is.
post #206 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
I just love these kind of ipse dixits and absolute pronouncements you make. Here's one back at ya. You are just flat wrong on this point. Familiarity with a certain sound or series of sounds as a result of long term exposure to the sound is something that can enable someone to determine the sound is different when something is changed. It is the A/B switching every 5 minutes that may fail to reveal differences that exist, especially when the test is conducted under the type of stress conditions maximized to produce failure.
Just FYI, and do a serach if you like, and as a side note but you are wrong on that, the memory spam for audio is just relativelly brief, IIRC just a few seconds, after that, you WILL NOT REMEMBER how a system sounded before, with accuracy at least...
post #207 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovkiller
Just FYI, and do a serach if you like, and as a side note but you are wrong on that, the memory spam for audio is just relativelly brief, IIRC just a few seconds, after that, you WILL NOT REMEMBER how a system sounded before, with accuracy at least...
I'm sorry, Sov, but YOU are just wrong (although perhaps you just misunderstand what others have said). There are many examples to prove the point, but one that comes to mind from my own experience is the changing of one brand of tubes to another in my tube amp. I know the sound of my favorite recordings very well in my system with my current tubes. If I change those tubes, I can hear the difference on these recordings, and on virtually every recording, as I play them in series over the next few weeks. I don't have to "remember" the sound, as if I have to have it memorized. My mind can quite clealy hear that the sound is different in various respects. If I keep the new tubes in for a lengthy period of time and then switch back, the sound difference is again quite obvious. I'm sure many, many others on this forum have had this experience. So to say that the mind can't tell that the sound is different in this instance is hogwash. I would also venture to say that, if you were able to switch back and forth between the tubes every 2 to 5 minutes, I and others might have a harder time discerning the differences.

To be fair, I would not say that a rapid switching back and forth has no value whatsover. (I just said that above to mimic bigshot's absolutism.) But to say that you can't hear a difference if you haven't listened to the item being compared for several days, or that ONLY A/B switching every 5 minutes has any value is not correct.
post #208 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
To be fair, I would not say that a rapid switching back and forth has no value whatsover. (I just said that above to mimic bigshot's absolutism.) But to say that you can't hear a difference if you haven't listened to the item being compared for several days, or that ONLY A/B switching every 5 minutes has any value is not correct.
I think that part of the reason that the so-called skeptics have trouble accepting this point is that many so-called believers make claims to the effect of, "the difference is night and day," which implies that they *should* be able to hear a difference in a test that involves switching every 5 minutes.

With that said, it seems to me that we could design an experiment that addressed this concern in a manner that both sides could accept. For example, a test could be conducted to determine whether a participant can hear a difference between cable brand 1 and cable brand 2. The cables would be prepared using the same sort of method that Ed used, except that there would be 11 cables, one labeled X, and the others labeled A through J. Each of the eleven cables would be constructed from cable brand 1 or cable brand 2, with the decision made randomly (maybe based on a coin flip) as to whether each sample is cable brand 1 or cable brand 2. For each cable A through J, the participants in the test would be required to identify whether the cable is X or not X. The participant would be able to listen to each sample for as long a time as he required in order to make that determination.
post #209 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
I'm sorry, Sov, but YOU are just wrong. There are many examples to prove the point, but one that comes to mind from my own experience is the changing of one brand of tubes to another in my tube amp. I know the sound of my favorite recordings very well in my system with my current tubes. If I change those tubes, I can hear the difference on these recordings, and on virtually every recording as I play them in series over the next few weeks. I don't have to "remember" the sound, as if I have to have it memorized. My mind can quite clearly hear that the sound is different in various respects. If I keep the new tubes in for a lengthy period of time and then switch back, the sound difference is again quite obvious. I'm sure many, many others on this forum have had this experience. So to say that the mind can't tell that the sound is different in this instance is hogwash. I would also venture to say that, if you were able to switch back and forth between the tubes every 2 to 5 minutes, I and others would have a harder time discerning any difference.

To be fair, I would not say that a rapid switching back and forth has no value whatsover. (I just said that above to mimic bigshot's absolutism.) But to say that you can't hear a difference if you haven't listened to the item being compared for several days, or that ONLY A/B switching every 5 minutes has any value is not correct.

Just because you believe that, that doesn't make it a universal truth, I agree that in the case of very obvious changes, that could be possible, I have experienced that myself, but for subtle changes like those introduced by cables, there is no way you can remember with accuracy after a few minutes (or seconds)...Sorry...

BTW you can say and believe what you want, based in your personal opinions, and tests, and experience. But the spam memory for audio have been tested analyzed, and discussed by audiologists, and science in general, over the years, this is not my opinion, based in my experience, this is based in the experience and tests and statistical evidence of them, and proved and backed with scientific work...I'm not saying that this is my opinion, this has been proved by science, not by me...

If you want to change that now, just go ahead and prove it, but till then, to me, and to them, the spam memory for audio just lasts for a few seconds, as we have no evidence of the contrary...the rest could be under the influence of placebo, and voodoo (that is not bad neither if that make you feel better) but I will not jump on that wagon, that over the years audiophiles had moved around with those beliefs...

BTW I still have the Cable Comparator CD, in which WireWorld compared 15 different cables by recording through them the same material using the same track and equipment, if any difference exists, those should be there, of course in every system, those will be heard diferently, depending on the setup, and sound signature, but there should be differences...if any member want a copy, just PM me, I could try to make it, as there is no longer avaialable, and it was offered free by them...
post #210 of 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
. I know the sound of my favorite recordings very well in my system with my current tubes. If I change those tubes, I can hear the difference on these recordings, and on virtually every recording, as I play them in series over the next few weeks.
You are a very unusual person. I assume that you can in fact do this, but, most people cannot. I can't. It's harder to prove in audio, but the same adaptive mechanism exists for color, and I can prove it there. Most people cannot remember color. It's just the way most peoples minds work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: