Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › an observation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

an observation - Page 3

post #31 of 50
Gil, why don't you try to set this up the next meet if some of us are interested in this.

Make a schedule on Saturday (to get longer operate hour) and ask the attendants to join the test.
post #32 of 50
WiityTH I will make a meet just for this. If I need to pick you up let me know. This will be fun. We can pick out the gear just for this. Good Idea.
post #33 of 50
IMO the debate is fueled by two equally puzzling views (stereotyped):

1. Objective subjectivists. These are people who call themselves subjectivists and hear differences which ought not be there from a technical point of view, but nevertheless insist that these differences must be caused by some unspecified yet-to-be-discovered objective property of the equipment. Suggesting that the differences they hear might be imagined is generally taken as an insult.

2. Ultra objectivists. These are people who say that since no differences can be measured or detected by humans in blind tests you are wasting your money in buying expensive gear. The fact that many people do have a different experience with different equipment is ignored or viewed as irrelevant.

Question to group 1: Why is it so disturbing to you that the differences you hear might, just might, be purely "in your head"? Does it in some way invalidate your experience?

Question to group 2: Does it really matter in what way the "deeper bass" or "more extended soundstage" is achieved when people (perhaps even independently) do in fact experience the claimed improvements? Aren't they getting what they payed for?
post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi View Post
Only when subjectivists make objective claims regarding audible differences, which they do rather routinely.

k
How about objectivists making the claim, there has never been a BDT where people can tell the difference in cables, yet can not provide links to these DBT.

So are DBT subjective to an objectivist?
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcrown View Post
Just because you didn't do the research doesn't mean the information is not out there, regardless of how many punctuation marks you use. You yourself made a thread asking for links to double blind tests, and you gathered quite a few responses, including one link to a test that had 110 participants. AES has been compiling double blind tests for quite some time, a quick google scholar search will tell you that much. I'm not going to do the research for you (especially because the links have been posted multiple times over several threads).

On top of that, I've yet to see a properly conducted (and I'm not providing an impossible burden here - all that I require is that the subjects not know which component is which) blind test that revealed differences between cables. In fact, I don't even know of an improperly conducted blind test that revealed differences between cables.
I gathered 8 responses, which I believe one or maybe two offer BDT on cables this involves 7 people (there maybe more in another language). Maybe you consider this to be quite a few, I don't.

I did a search on Google Scholar under AES audio cable double blind tests. I got several papers about codecs one about subjectivists, but no direct links to audio cable double blind tests.

So please feel free to give links to the numerous audio cable double blind tests

Why do the cable believers have to prove they can hear a difference in cables and also prove that in double blind test people can't?
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG POPPA View Post
I can provide 2 sets of RCA interconnects that sound different. One set of cables with silver plated copper wire with Rhodium connectors and a set of copper wire with nickel connectors to see if they sound the same or different?
If you can wait until late August/early September I will happily borrow your cables and submit them to my tests, this will involve testing the frequency response and noise characteristics, recording samples with each and blind testing the resultant trimmed and aligned samples. I will use an ADC (I can do this at 44K , 48K or 96K and at 16 or 24 bits as you prefer) to sample the signals and run the analysis through Audacity or Cool Edit Pro, I will export the analyses to a speadsheet and chart the responses allowing direct comparisons. My system can resolve differences of < 0.001 db and I can make the samples publicly(sp?) available.
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
If you can wait until late August/early September I will happily borrow your cables and submit them to my tests, this will involve testing the frequency response and noise characteristics, recording samples with each and blind testing the resultant trimmed and aligned samples. I will use an ADC (I can do this at 44K , 48K or 96K and at 16 or 24 bits as you prefer) to sample the signals and run the analysis through Audacity or Cool Edit Pro, I will export the analyses to a speadsheet and chart the responses allowing direct comparisons. My system can resolve differences of < 0.001 db and I can make the samples publicly(sp?) available.
Which cable will you use to perform the blind test?
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post
Does it really matter in what way the "deeper bass" or "more extended soundstage" is achieved when people (perhaps even independently) do in fact experience the claimed improvements? Aren't they getting what they payed for?
My perspective only, obviously: It only really matters when trying to determine if the experience is transferable. I am content if a given individual is blissfully happy with their gear. It is even fine when they say they have found a system they are happy with and describe it. But when they begin asserting that component X made the difference in such a way to suggest that you, me, others would also benefit from that, then I think some extra examination is in order. Especially if it involves components where there is significant debate over whether they would achieve the reported effects. And particularly it becomes important if the wonder device X costs large sums of money.

Edit: Thinking on this further, it also matters if you want to explain why device A results in better sound/enjoyment than device B. Objectivists are looking for that explanation. It's great to note that people are reporting improvements in sound, but understanding how and why that improvement is occurring is very much in keeping with the way human knowledge is typically advanced.
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
Which cable will you use to perform the blind test?
LOL

I have a DAC/amp with an optical digital input so no need for an analog cable at all for the 2nd part. Actually you are known to have good ears you could be a listener for the blind tests ?
post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
Which cable will you use to perform the blind test?
If the cables are part of a chain that produces an output at the headphone out and the last mile, so to speak, is the headphones themselves, is it not sufficient to record that headphone out signal and then listen to it replayed via a PC, DAP, etc where you have primarily a source and headphones? This is a sincere question. Actually, I would think you'd record the line out and record to FLAC or WAV.
post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjisme View Post
If the cables are part of a chain that produces an output at the headphone out and the last mile, so to speak, is the headphones themselves, is it not sufficient to record that headphone out signal and then listen to it replayed via a PC, DAP, etc where you have primarily a source and headphones? This is a sincere question. Actually, I would think you'd record the line out and record to FLAC or WAV.
To record the headphone output ? - you would have to use a mic and that would be much harder to be consistent about.

My protocol takes the line-out using the selected cables and (records) samples it using an ADC, the result is a set of WAV files, the reason to do this is to run FR analyses and so on i.e you get an objective set of measures but as I record samples I can also get actual music for comparisons , a two-fer
post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post
IMO the debate is fueled by two equally puzzling views (stereotyped):

1. Objective subjectivists. These are people who call themselves subjectivists and hear differences which ought not be there from a technical point of view, but nevertheless insist that these differences must be caused by some unspecified yet-to-be-discovered objective property of the equipment. Suggesting that the differences they hear might be imagined is generally taken as an insult.

2. Ultra objectivists. These are people who say that since no differences can be measured or detected by humans in blind tests you are wasting your money in buying expensive gear. The fact that many people do have a different experience with different equipment is ignored or viewed as irrelevant.
Let me disagree with one thing you wrote on that "ultra objectivists" group. The fact that different people have a different experience with different equipment is not ignored. The experience is analyzed, we search for any flaw on the test that could lead to conclusions different from what measurements say, and when we find something is not correct, then we say it is irrelevant, and it is similar to giving a subjective opinion. If the test subject is biased in his test to a certain degree, then the test becomes invalid.

I have read loads of impressions when people compared two or more setups that could explain their listening to "better SQ" when it might actually (and most likely) be louder, or pricier,... That is also the reason of getting back to DBT, because so far it is the most reliable method we have (apart from what measurements can give us).

I do not consider myself part of that "ultra objectivist" group; I would like to read some article that really explained why A equipment sounds better than B, when they measure the same in the average human FR. But I see it so far away that I am starting to forget about the possibility of that happening soon.

Then if you check the Pro world, you can see almost no debates about cables. I still think that Gregorio's leaving was not good, because he talked from that "experience believers" rate so highly.

I am still open minded to some kind of reliable test giving some kind of explanation to the "cable differences", but again I don't really see it coming.
post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 883dave View Post
I gathered 8 responses, which I believe one or maybe two offer BDT on cables this involves 7 people (there maybe more in another language). Maybe you consider this to be quite a few, I don't.

I did a search on Google Scholar under AES audio cable double blind tests. I got several papers about codecs one about subjectivists, but no direct links to audio cable double blind tests.

So please feel free to give links to the numerous audio cable double blind tests

Why do the cable believers have to prove they can hear a difference in cables and also prove that in double blind test people can't?
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Power cable long term blind test

Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers (You don't remember this infamous blind test where the audiophiles tested couldn't distinguish between monster cables and coat hangers?)

Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia -- Perlman 34 (5): 783 -- Social Studies of Science

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (the author provides a poor interpretation of the experiment but the methodology and results are legitimate)

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

(above 3 require journal access)

http://studio139.webs.com/PDFs/Resea...20Shootout.pdf

That was about 30 seconds on google and a minute on google scholar (because I had to pull up my college's proxy server to get journal access). Imagine how much you could find with maybe a half an hour of research.

Hell, even if there aren't that many blind tests for cables, where is even one properly conducted blind test with positive results?
post #44 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcrown View Post
Hydrogenaudio Forums > Power cable long term blind test

Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers (You don't remember this infamous blind test where the audiophiles tested couldn't distinguish between monster cables and coat hangers?)

Golden Ears and Meter Readers: The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia -- Perlman 34 (5): 783 -- Social Studies of Science

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (the author provides a poor interpretation of the experiment but the methodology and results are legitimate)

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

(above 3 require journal access)

http://studio139.webs.com/PDFs/Resea...20Shootout.pdf

That was about 30 seconds on google and a minute on google scholar (because I had to pull up my college's proxy server to get journal access). Imagine how much you could find with maybe a half an hour of research.

Hell, even if there aren't that many blind tests for cables, where is even one properly conducted blind test with positive results?
Thanks for your time.

The first link is about cables

The second is dubious at best (they started out with 5 audiophiles and morphed into 12)

The next three I can't open

The last is not about cables.

So the DBT have been elevated to 2 with 30 listeners

If we use the monster DBT it shows that 2 people were able to tell the difference between beldin and monster cable, it would seem 7 times.
post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 883dave View Post
Thanks for your time.

The first link is about cables

The second is dubious at best (they started out with 5 audiophiles and morphed into 12)

The next three I can't open

The last is not about cables.

So the DBT have been elevated to 2 with 30 listeners

If we use the monster DBT it shows that 2 people were able to tell the difference between beldin and monster cable, it would seem 7 times.
The second link is dubious because one of the several blogs that linked to it mistyped? If you have a problem with the actual methodology as outlined in the test itself, by all means bring it up, but the original poster is not responsible for blogs that misreport.

As for the following three, just because you can't access the articles doesn't mean they don't exist or are thereby discredited. One of the links was done at MIT by a professor there, and involved a sample size of 24. Another was a literature review done at UCSD and discusses the carver challenge. The author is actually a believer and I don't agree with 95% of what he writes about, but the section on blind testing, specifically the carver challenge, is informative. A lot of it is warrantless, but I linked to it to provide some balance and because what is substantial is interesting. The final link is the opposite - laden with blind test analysis, but written with a more skeptical slant. It is also a literature review from Brown University.

The last article isn't about cables, but it is about audio interfaces. If people cannot distinguish between amplifiers, interfaces, and other components, how are they going to be able to distinguish between cables? If you look at the massive array of blind testing done between components, and you look at the conclusions of them, it becomes increasingly unlikely that cables can make an audible difference where other components cannot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › an observation