Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind cable testing: initial report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blind cable testing: initial report - Page 9

post #121 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezbleu View Post
You seem to have compared 2 cables, at least one of which exhibits a measurable defect...
Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread, but which cable had the gross flaw and when was it measured?
post #122 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread, but which cable had the gross flaw and when was it measured?
Which cable? I suggest you read the original post.

Who measured it? Good question. However, the original poster claimed that one cable exhibited an audible high-frequency roll-off. I assume that any audible frequency-response error is measurable. Maybe I'm wrong. Then again, there have been instances where testers have measured cables and some of them, usually very expensive high-end ones, have been shown to have very high shunt capacitance or series inductance, either of which would be enough to produce a measurable low-pass filter in the presence of even reasonable souce and load impedances.
post #123 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezbleu View Post
I find this fascinating, but I do not understand why it is under "sound science" since there is nothing remotely scientific about it. As I understand it, you compared (blind) two interconnects, and they exhibited a noticeable difference in frequency response. You used this difference to defeat a "straw man" who claims that all cables are indistinguishable. However, "objectivists" have never made that claim; rather, they claim that competently made cables with no significant measurable difference will sound the same.
I believe this is a work in progress, with a lot more listening yet to be done. The 'faulty' cable has been identified and replaced with one that is audibly similar to the cheaper cable. No conclusion has yet been drawn on the central debate.
post #124 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1127 View Post
I stood a 50% chance of getting each right by guessing. I got both right, and in fact was quite sure of the differences I heard, which is a promising start---though in all truth, statistically insignificant.
As long as you don't reach a critical probability (e.g. like 75%) this test shows that you really were just guessing, thus supporting the statement that it's impossible to hear a difference. Also, ~4 tries are by far not enough, so the whole test is statistically irrelevant or invalid like many other posters have stated.
Still, I appreciate your efforts but I'd suggest that you to redo the whole thing, create a new thread and mark this one irrelevant/invalid.
post #125 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
As long as you don't reach a critical probability (e.g. like 75%) this test shows that you really were just guessing, thus supporting the statement that it's impossible to hear a difference. Also, ~4 tries are by far not enough, so the whole test is statistically irrelevant or invalid like many other posters have stated.
Mike1127 said in his first post that he recognized it wasn't statistically significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
Still, I appreciate your efforts but I'd suggest that you to redo the whole thing, create a new thread and mark this one irrelevant/invalid.
Wow, you're a presumptuous little rascal, with all of 17 posts and two months on this forum, aren't you?
post #126 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
Mike1127 said in his first post that he recognized it wasn't statistically significant.

Wow, you're a presumptuous little rascal, with all of 17 posts and two months on this forum, aren't you?
a) That's right, but it's kind of lost in between his "findings".

b) We're a bit touchy today, aren't we? .. eh wait, didn't you point me at the forum rules a few minutes ago, mentioning how to express your opinion in a tactful way? Now I'm confused.
post #127 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
. . . eh wait, didn't you point me at the forum rules a few minutes ago, mentioning how to express your opinion in a tactful way? Now I'm confused.
No need for confusion. Telling someone (who's somewhat new to the forum) that they're being presumptuous by telling another member who's been around for quite some time and has offered quite a few interesting contributions on this forum that they should delete their thread because it is "irrelevant/invalid," is not the same as someone who's somewhat new to the forum cussing at folks and suggesting they're "brainwashed" or "superstitious."

As you will see, there tends to be some strong disagreements on this forum between various people with various points of view, so it's easy for flame wars to get started when that might not have been what was intended. And I'm sure you didn't intend that.
post #128 of 128
No no, don't delete, it's a nice read anyway! :P
Brainwashed? But they are! Hehe, you know I didn't mean it that way.

LingLing1337's first reply says it all, man.. I nearly had to change pants.

Sorry, back to topic! No more personal comments more I hope.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind cable testing: initial report