Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Has anyone tried to make a blind cables test?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Has anyone tried to make a blind cables test? - Page 2

post #16 of 32

Read the whole topic now... wow thats long and interesting. Really, I haven't even gotten to the point where I am spending a ton of money on DACs and AMPs (the former I have never believed in too much). Now I feel like I could put my iPod in a fancy box and perceive the sound of a $2000 setup... 

post #17 of 32

With cables it is pretty easy to know who to trust... Just buy professional-grade, well-shielded cables and you will be fine. They usually cost a bit more than generic cables from the mall and this is due to the fact that they are simply more durable and better manufactured. They are not very expensive though (about 2-4$ a meter). Some companies that make cables like this include Cordial and Mogami. These cables sound no better or worse than cheap generic cables, they are just more durable and better shielded. They also sound no better or worse than boutique cables. Naturally, I am referring to functional cables here, it is obvious that a faulty cable will sound worse than a fully functional one, no matter how expensive it is.


Edited by jupitreas - 4/29/12 at 2:15pm
post #18 of 32

Frankly, a lot of the people responding to my post have been both rude and ignorant.  And I'm sorry I took the time to even bother responding to this BS.  Apparently, you have your mind made up, and don't want to hear anything else. THAT is expectation bias.  

 

I had two cables, each was the same price, both were cheap, one sounded better than the other.  So I used the one that sounded better.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand?  What does that have to do with "expectation bias?"  

 

Frankly, a lot of this reminds me of the BS you read about the "Objective 2" amp - that it's scientifically proven to sound perfect, that anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves, blah blah blah. 

post #19 of 32
If u cannot consistently identify an item or reliably discern a sonic signature then it makes no actual difference. Just because two cables are similarly priced does not mean two products will not be perceived differently by the mind. The importance i guess would be to make sure audiophiles actually know what they are talking about. If you are spending thousands of dollars on cables and exclaiming differences thst others prove dont exist or is so minute as to be irrelevant, then audiophiles as a whole will just come off looking like idiots and suckers.
post #20 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNZGamer View Post

If u cannot consistently identify an item or reliably discern a sonic signature then it makes no actual difference. Just because two cables are similarly priced does not mean two products will not be perceived differently by the mind. The importance i guess would be to make sure audiophiles actually know what they are talking about. If you are spending thousands of dollars on cables and exclaiming differences thst others prove dont exist or is so minute as to be irrelevant, then audiophiles as a whole will just come off looking like idiots and suckers.

 

I think by this logic that you would have to simply say that audiophiles as a whole are simply idiots and suckers.  If that makes you feel better, good for you.  I'm pretty sure that numerous doubleblind tests have been conducted that prove that the average listener cannot consistently and reliably tell a $10,000 setup from a $100 setup.  I have no doubt that the average person could not consistently and reliably tell 24/196 from 128k AAC.  I have no doubt that the average person could not consistently and reliably tell a $500 glass of wine from a $5 glass of wine.

 

 

What does any of that "prove?"  That nothing makes any difference?  Then why are you bothering with the forum at all?  To enlighten the poor ignorants?

 

This was my fault - I should have known that anyone who posts to a column with the words "double blind" knows what they believe already.  

 

post #21 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVU View Post

 

 

I think by this logic that you would have to simply say that audiophiles as a whole are simply idiots and suckers.  If that makes you feel better, good for you.  I'm pretty sure that numerous doubleblind tests have been conducted that prove that the average listener cannot consistently and reliably tell a $10,000 setup from a $100 setup.  I have no doubt that the average person could not consistently and reliably tell 24/196 from 128k AAC.  I have no doubt that the average person could not consistently and reliably tell a $500 glass of wine from a $5 glass of wine.

 

And those people are suckers when they buy those expensive products. I am not arguing against this... Average consumer buys $10,000 worth of amps and DACS and cables to power his Beats and then turns on electronica EQ presets on itunes? What else would you call that?

 

 

What does any of that "prove?"  That nothing makes any difference?  Then why are you bothering with the forum at all?  To enlighten the poor ignorants?

 

How did we go from cables scientifically and empirically not making a difference to nothing ever has difference? You can double blind me to test my m-80 and RS1s and I will give you a 100% accuracy check. 

 

This was my fault - I should have known that anyone who posts to a column with the words "double blind" knows what they believe already.  

 

Believing what is proven is not a bias... You are the one challenging scientific findings. I had no issues with what you posted anyways, so I don't know why you are going so hard against me. I am just saying that for you to hear a difference between two cables, barring faulty wiring, you would need ears superior to 99% of audio professionals in order for your differences to be anything beyond whats in your head. The burden of proof is on you in this case.

 

 


Edited by DNZGamer - 4/29/12 at 6:57pm
post #22 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNZGamer View Post

Read the whole topic now... wow thats long and interesting. Really, I haven't even gotten to the point where I am spending a ton of money on DACs and AMPs (the former I have never believed in too much). Now I feel like I could put my iPod in a fancy box and perceive the sound of a $2000 setup... 

 

Lol, that has been done. Stick an ipod in a high end case and people raved about the sound!

post #23 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVU View Post

Frankly, a lot of the people responding to my post have been both rude and ignorant.  And I'm sorry I took the time to even bother responding to this BS.  Apparently, you have your mind made up, and don't want to hear anything else. THAT is expectation bias.  

 

I had two cables, each was the same price, both were cheap, one sounded better than the other.  So I used the one that sounded better.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand?  What does that have to do with "expectation bias?"  

 

Frankly, a lot of this reminds me of the BS you read about the "Objective 2" amp - that it's scientifically proven to sound perfect, that anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves, blah blah blah. 

 

If there is no measureable audible difference and testing finds no audibly detectable difference between cables, then there is no difference. To hear no difference is not expectation bias, it is an accurate assessment of what has been heard. To hear a difference means something has happened to cause the difference, since we know it is not in the cable it must be caused by the listener. That is expectation bias.

 

I am sorry that you say taking the time to explain that and providing evidence to prove it is BS.

post #24 of 32

People actually think there isn't variance in our senses? Reading through one of the linked threads and seeing the term "golden ears" makes me smile. Seems like common sense to me, yet people on this forum are arguing against it.

 

Have there been any tests done with only blind participants?
 

post #25 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weee View Post

People actually think there isn't variance in our senses? Reading through one of the linked threads and seeing the term "golden ears" makes me smile. Seems like common sense to me, yet people on this forum are arguing against it.

 

Have there been any tests done with only blind participants?
 

 

Not that I have found.

post #26 of 32

Quick A/B tests don't work unless the differences are quite large. I know the sound of my hifi like the back of my hand and small differences are quite obvious to me.

 

Regarding expectation bias - I must have some kind of reverse expectation bias because I don't usually like the sound of expensive cables and the really weird thing is, the silver cables that I tried didn't sound bright to me, but a bit soft or "Hifi" sounding. Some electronic components that measure very well left me cold too.

post #27 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weee View Post

People actually think there isn't variance in our senses? Reading through one of the linked threads and seeing the term "golden ears" makes me smile. Seems like common sense to me, yet people on this forum are arguing against it.

 

 

Its not the golden ears that bothers me - of course there is variation in our senses. What bothers me are people who claim to hear things that all the evidence to date suggests are not audible (as demonstrated by property DBT and ABX testing, and supporting good theory and measurement) - then when others do not hear them (correctly - because they do not exist), claim that the system/listener/etc. are not sensitive enough to hear the difference that their "golden ears" could. The difference that does not exist (supposed differences that vanish even when the golden ear owners participate in the DBT/ABX testing.)

 

It is a derogatory term not because of their better hearing, but because they mistake something they "heard" as a result of some psychoacoustic phenomena, as something audible, then put the blame on others when they do not fall victim to the same bias. E.g "I can see a giant floating pink elephant - if you cannot, it's because your eyes are bad, or your monitor is not high-end/high resolution enough."

 

Ridiculous.  


Edited by liamstrain - 4/30/12 at 12:33pm
post #28 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNZGamer View Post

Read the whole topic now... wow thats long and interesting. Really, I haven't even gotten to the point where I am spending a ton of money on DACs and AMPs (the former I have never believed in too much). Now I feel like I could put my iPod in a fancy box and perceive the sound of a $2000 setup... 

 

Schrodinger's DAC/source. Everyone, do this and take the happy ending. /audiophile

 

Don't mind me, just failing to be funny. Although this is an interesting thread, so I am subbing.

post #29 of 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVU View Post

 

24/196 from 128k AAC. 

 

rolleyes.gif

post #30 of 32

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weee View Post

People actually think there isn't variance in our senses? Reading through one of the linked threads and seeing the term "golden ears" makes me smile. Seems like common sense to me, yet people on this forum are arguing against it.

 

Have there been any tests done with only blind participants?
 

 

That something is 'common sense' does not make it true. There is variance in our senses but it is likely far smaller than what many people imagine. There is also no proof that some people have a more advanced sense of hearing than others. Not a shred of proof. All we have is people who claim to hear something others cannot but then fail to demonstrate this in a scientifically rigorous study. They use logical fallacies to support their claims (mainly an appeal to authority, with them being the self-appointed authority).

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVU View Post

Frankly, a lot of this reminds me of the BS you read about the "Objective 2" amp - that it's scientifically proven to sound perfect, that anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves, blah blah blah. 

Its not BS, you might have not understood the whole idea behind the O2. The O2 does indeed measure extremely well for its price. This means that it offers a high degree of transparency and performs similarly with a large number of headphones. It might not subjectively sound better than other amps to many people, but this is because those amps introduce various forms of distortion to the signal. For example, many headphone amps have a somewhat high output impedance and this affects damping and bass response in a way that many people find pleasing. 

 

The idea behind the O2, as far as I can see, is to have a reference amplifier that is as transparent as possible given the cost. The O2 does not introduce any undocumented and unforseen changes to the sound and in fact can be 'forgotten' in the signal chain. If the listener does not find this sound pleasing, they can always use EQ or DSP to alter the signal in a way that will please them. The difference is that this form of sound enhancement is controlled by the user and not dictated by an amp without appropriate documentation. 

 


Edited by jupitreas - 5/1/12 at 5:51am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Has anyone tried to make a blind cables test?