And what would I gain from it? I can DBT my $3 killer sounding shielded composite cable and my Belden 1794A/Canare cable anytime you want. Really. They sound so different that it's not even open for debate....but surely I'm a clueless victim of placebo, and France is rather far from where you currently reside I presume so you'd need to trust me on my good word.
All the cables DBT's I've read were done w/ analog cables in non-acoustically treated rooms and without Digital Room Correction. For what I know, the guys were listening to the room more than to the cables....and when you provide links to jitter hearing tests, they're always utterly flawed, like one was using mono signals recorded on tapes, or the other was using $5 headphones. The ppl who enjoy their music have nothing to prove to the non-believers. If everything sounds the same to you, then Hallelujah! one less thing to worry about I'd say
Copper costs $10K a ton, I'm w/ you about the ppl who sell copper for the price of platinum...they use guru-like methods on gullible ppl. A well designed cable doesn't have to carry a 3 figures price tag...it does because the "pricier=better" circular logic is very much at play in the audiophile world.
Yeah, we're drinking the Kool-Aid...
This is the kind of rebuttal to such tests that does absolutely nothing for the "there is a big difference" crowd.
If it is so easy to tell the two cables apart, why don't you set up such a blind test yourself just like you said you can do? With a helper, it's relatively easy to do - I'm sure someone would be glad to write up a procedure for your facilitator (helper) to follow. Someone will end up surprised in the end - it's just a matter of whom.
If the difference is really a result of the cable and not your mind, you'll find out with enough trials to make a statistically significant conclusion.
The people who "believe" do have something to prove, apparently - otherwise you wouldn't be here, and otherwise there wouldn't be any sort of debate over the matter... One man's icing on the cake is another man's total waste of money...
As for the studies you mention, links please to them. "Five dollar headphones"? "Digital room correction"? What if you're testing an analog rig? Perhaps a mono tape, a high quality original eight track... Like Skylab said, the other factors are not necessarily important at all if they are held constant as a control. It depends on the particular test system of course - very poor headphones/speakers may indeed mask issues with upstream components. But without specific examples it's hard to examine exactly what you're trying to say - your point is meaningless without specific study examples.
And are there any studies/tests saying there is audibility at the level of accuracy of decent gear? Show us!
If you'd actually read the study I posted....
studio that each listener had oﬀered. The examiner only
brought there a personal computer with a digital audio
interface and a mouse and each listener provided his or her
favorite DAC, ampliﬁers and loudspeakers.
The sound materials were also selected by each
listener. Materials that had been repeatedly heard by the
listener could be used.
A total of 23 audio professionals or semi-professionals
participated as the listeners. They were audio engineers,
audio critics, sound engineers, and musicians. Some of
them were volunteers and the others were paid for their
participation. All of them were willing to participate in the
So two dozen professionals and semi-professionals who were listening on their own intimately familiar equipment in their own intimately familiar listening spot could not hear random jitter at all when it was as high as 250 ns. Only 6/23 participants detected jitter at 500 ns, 11/23 at 1000 ns, and at 2000 ns all 23 could detect it.
If you bother to read it, they go on to relate to the results of other studies, including those performed in more controlled listening environments (the same system for all listeners). Now, this study isn't perfect - more trials would always be useful, and more rigorous statistical analysis as well - but the procedure is very rigorous otherwise, as it's actually a follow-up of a particular controlled listening condition test. The results are comparable to another study using random jitter, and they explained why a different study with lower results would do so (sinusoidal jitter, and listeners who decided for themselves when they could no longer hear jitter - definitely not a scientifically valid method for determining audibility of the phenomenon).
Again, it pays to actually read...