[Roger Strummer]

 
Quote:

 
Of course DBX doesn't take into consideration feelings as emotions aren't hearing and hearing isn't emotion.  If you ask me, can I hear a difference, I would have to answer many times no, unless I listen real intently, many A/B times, for specific differences, in specific frequency ranges; clear case of undependability but differences just the same.  Now if you asked me was I experiencing an emotional change, am I happy (positive impact) in context to the differences of the two cables, I would have to say yes.  Two completely different questions and two completely different answers.  Will I experience differences with all cables, probably not.  So if you threw cables in that I didn't hear a difference on and drew your conclusions from just a cable sample of one, you'd be basing your conclusions on incomplete data; this cable yes, this cable no.
 

 
Apart from the emotion that a person might get from looking at the cable, which I'm not saying is not real, but is what we are trying to eliminate from the results since we are looking for audible differences, if the emotion is purely caused by the audio then it would be reflected in the results of the study. Now as you mentioned a sample size of one tells us pretty much nothing statistically relevant, so I want to emphasize that the selection of samples (of both participants and cables) is HUGELY important, there have been cases of well performed studies that led to untrue conclusions due to a bad sample.
 
For example in one study of prog rock man's thread that claims that people cannot hear differences between amps, it is arguable that the amp sample is not that good, so the margin of error is bigger than with a well selected sample.
 
Also remember the study is not about one individual having more than x%, it is about the average of the sample to try to control the variance you are talking about, and now that I understood you, your concern about it is very valid, just that it is taken into account in these tests (with adequate sample sizes and not dealing with any one individual in particular).

Quote:

Let me try.  The basic technical issue with the DBX tests as they stand and the criteria used for declaring a positive test, is that if the test is positive, one can claim with an extremely high degree of certainty that cables make a difference to the sound.
 
However, if the test doesn't demonstrate a difference, this doesn't mean that one can say with a high degree of certainty that cables do not make a difference to sound.  All one can say is that there's no convincing evidence to say that cables make a difference.
 
 
One controls the degree of certainty, its the famous p-value of a study. The better sample and design of the experiment, the less chance of error, so we can have "high" degrees of certainty, after all medical studies that want to see if a medicine gives you cancer or whatever have more strict tolerances than other studies, since there is a lot at stake, but shows you can reduce the chance of error. But even in those highly controlled experiments, they don't say conclusively "its impossible that XX gave you your diarrhea" (it could be an allergic reaction that was unexpected or something), but it is highly improbable it will happen.
 
 
 
This is very different from the vociferous, dismissive, belittling comments from anti-cablers who claim that there is no difference in sound when using different cables and that science has proven this.  It has done no such thing.

 

Apart from the little thing I added, that is actually the spirit, your comment is very good. In more casual talk one would say that the studies have casted (big-ish*) doubts on the claim of being able to hear difference between cable so far... and then one raises an eyebrow and looks at the the world with a suspicious look  .


*Doubts get bigger with more or better studies that keep showing negative results.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Let me try.  The basic technical issue with the DBX tests as they stand and the criteria used for declaring a positive test, is that if the test is positive, one can claim with an extremely high degree of certainty that cables make a difference to the sound.
 
However, if the test doesn't demonstrate a difference, this doesn't mean that one can say with a high degree of certainty that cables do not make a difference to sound.  All one can say is that there's no convincing evidence to say that cables make a difference.
 
This is very different from the vociferous, dismissive, belittling comments from anti-cablers who claim that there is no difference in sound when using different cables and that science has proven this.  It has done no such thing.

Spot on, an excellent point.

 

[beeman458]

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
Apart from the emotion that a person might get from looking at the cable, which I'm not saying is not real,...
 
I've said nothing regarding visual stimulation and the emotional response to the per-ty looking cables.
 
...but is what we are trying to eliminate from the results since we are looking for audible differences, if the emotion is purely caused by the audio then it would be reflected in the results of the study.
 
Not necessarily as one might not hear a difference but one can have a different emotional response and if you ask them are they hearing a difference and they honestly say they're not, then the emotional difference they're hearing, isn't reflected in the honest answer.  Hence why I recommend scanning the brain while listening to different cables and let the pictures of the brain being activated used as proof as opposed to using an arbitrary percentage right, as the determinant.  Why?  Because the amount of the brain lighting up during the test will accurately reflect the analogue nature of the human sensory system, where as a DBT, question and answer session, won't.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Alright, I can't quote while being in the iPhone so I'll just say what I have to say. Technically the question in a DBT is not if you can hear a difference, it is to ask you to identify the component. So technically I you were identifying them by telepathic powers or by the emotion produced by supersonic frequencies or whatever. In other words the test is about if you can identify the equipment, it is not a test of how you can identify it.

 

[SP Wild]

 
Quote:

Not necessarily as one might not hear a difference but one can have a different emotional response and if you ask them are they hearing a difference and they honestly say they're not, then the emotional difference they're hearing, isn't reflected in the honest answer.  Hence why I recommend scanning the brain while listening to different cables and let the pictures of the brain being activated used as proof as opposed to using an arbitrary percentage right, as the determinant.  Why?  Because the amount of the brain lighting up during the test will accurately reflect the analogue nature of the human sensory system, where as a DBT, question and answer session, won't.

That's the first time I've heard of a brain scan proposal.  I think there may be some merit here.  I walked the cable path when as a sceptic I had changed to longer RCA leads from my "free with amp" nice cable after re-arranging my furniture required longer leads.  Afterwards I found I didn't enjoy my can anymore - it sounded boring and flat, I assumed the novelty of new toy syndrome had worn off.
 
To my surprise after re-arranging again and going back to the "better" cable some time afterwards I found it sounded better - I swapped the cables around and concluded that the cable made the difference.
 
Same with the digital filters on the Dacmagic - I was feeling a little agitated and uncomfortable - didn't know why, but when I experimented with the different filtering techniques concluded that I had a adverse reaction to all the filters that did not cut-off at 22khz.  Beats me.

 

[yococo96]

I think that even with thousands of blind tests, you won't prove that there's no difference between the cable. 
I just quote stuart chase:[size=small] "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible". [/size]
it's the same for the religion, you can't prove that god exist, but billions of people believe it. 

 

[beeman458]

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
Technically the question in a DBT is not if you can hear a difference, it is to ask you to identify the component.
 
And then some dufus comes along and plays the same cables, over and over and over again; deceptive practices.
 
Not trying to argue in my comment but one has to enter these tests as if they're being administered without a bias or use of deceptive practices and if one asks me to can I "hear" a difference, then that's all I'm going do, look to "hear" a difference.
 
As I've written, sometimes I can't say I'm "hearing" a difference but I can say the feeling of the music is different but again, if asked if I can "hear" a difference, then, that's the question I'm suppose to respond to.
 
I can be such a good little droid.
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

I think that even with thousands of blind tests, you won't prove that there's no difference between the cable. 
I just quote stuart chase:[size=small] "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible". [/size]
it's the same for the religion, you can't prove that god exist, but billions of people believe it. 

The fatal flaw with using belief, or faith, to guide you is that believers tend to also reject many other belief/faith systems while focusing on just what they think is correct.
 
For instance, you might take the cable thing as a matter of faith while also rejecting other belief-based audio tweaks.  If I told you that turning in a circle clockwise before listening would make your system sound better and turning counterclockwise before listening would make your system sound worse, I'm sure you would be skeptical.  I could pull out all sorts of arguments about how the inner ear is structured, etc. etc. and BS a case in favor of turning in a circle clockwise before listening and then insist that I found "night and day" differences with this tweak.
 
Even if you tried it and found no difference, I could say that you're biased and "hate" my tweak, are too lazy to do it right, and so on.
 
But if you're going to accept cables on faith, why won't you also accept turning in a circle on faith?  Or how about magic rocks, the clever little clock, perhaps an aerosol spray to de-ionize the air for better sound propagation, or much else?
 
Even the faithful discriminate actively against other belief systems, which is where the hypocrisy lies.  If you're going to take one completely untestable idea and base a belief system around it, then why aren't you accepting every other belief system that's also untestable?
 
The danger here is that you would eventually end up in a fog of cognitive dissonance because all of the countless belief systems inevitably conflict with each other.
 
Not every untestable belief system can be right.  But all of them can be wrong.
 
The only way out of this trap is with testing and the scientific method.  That's the only way to get at objective reality.  It's uncomfortable to have much-loved beliefs knocked out by testing, but that's reality.
 
With cables, no one has ever passed an unsighted listening test of any type.  No measurement has ever been found to demonstrate a difference.  And - surprise - the people selling cables tend strongly towards con-men and grifters.  You can't prove a negative, but when you step back and look at the forest, every indicator points to cables being a scam.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
With cables, no one has ever passed an unsighted listening test of any type.  No measurement has ever been found to demonstrate a difference.  And - surprise - the people selling cables tend strongly towards con-men and grifters.  You can't prove a negative, but when you step back and look at the forest, every indicator points to cables being a scam.

That is not quite true. There was one study that found differences using unsighted tests, however it was extreme, it used 1M and 3M length cables from the pre-eq output of a moving magnet cartridge, I call that loading the dice a touch as there may well be some significantly greater sigal loss.
 
 
Good luck with your cable tests, I had a couple of thoughts...
 
 
1. Have two identical cables and see if the A:A swindle works (thanks to Wavoman for that idea)
 
2. Have an agenda-free pal relabel your cables (and keep a record) so that even you do not know which is which driring the tests, thus avoiding the possibility of subtle cues being given out.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
Technically the question in a DBT is not if you can hear a difference, it is to ask you to identify the component.
 
And then some dufus comes along and plays the same cables, over and over and over again; deceptive practices.
 
Not trying to argue in my comment but one has to enter these tests as if they're being administered without a bias or use of deceptive practices and if one asks me to can I "hear" a difference, then that's all I'm going do, look to "hear" a difference.
 
As I've written, sometimes I can't say I'm "hearing" a difference but I can say the feeling of the music is different but again, if asked if I can "hear" a difference, then, that's the question I'm suppose to respond to.
 
I can be such a good little droid.
 

 

First you are not asked if you hear a difference, you are asked to identify A from B. Second you are thinking of Single Blind testing, in which the tester knows at the moment of the test what is being tested by whom. DBT gets the double part by both the tester and the participant being blind to the cable or whatever being proven. It is not about the how you do it.


Quote:

With cables, no one has ever passed an unsighted listening test of any type.  No measurement has ever been found to demonstrate a difference.  And - surprise - the people selling cables tend strongly towards con-men and grifters.  You can't prove a negative, but when you step back and look at the forest, every indicator points to cables being a scam.

Yeah, unfortunately not everything is as beautiful as Math in which you can prove that you can't prove something, prove negatives and even prove that systems are incomplete 

. But as always, great post Erik!

 
Quote:

That is not quite true. There was one study that found differences using unsighted tests, however it was extreme, it used 1M and 3M length cables from the pre-eq output of a moving magnet cartridge, I call that loading the dice a touch as there may well be some significantly greater sigal loss.
 
 
Good luck with your cable tests, I had a couple of thoughts...
 
 
1. Have two identical cables and see if the A:A swindle works (thanks to Wavoman for that idea)
 
2. Have an agenda-free pal relabel your cables (and keep a record) so that even you do not know which is which driring the tests, thus avoiding the possibility of subtle cues being given out.

 
Your thoughts are very interesting, the 1. is a particularly useful test. The second actually is a rule of DBT, if not technically one is performing Single Blind Testing (unless I'm wrong as to what the double is referring to).
 

 

[beeman458]

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
First you are not asked if you hear a difference, you are asked to identify A from B.
 
Well, then, I guess I'm wrong in that all anybody has written about is "hearing" a difference until I brought up the point of feeling a difference when not being able to hear a difference and then all of a sudden, the rules changed.
 
???
 
All you're doing is cementing my conviction as to the bias nature of DBT.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
First you are not asked if you hear a difference, you are asked to identify A from B.
 
Well, then, I guess I'm wrong in that all anybody has written about is "hearing" a difference until I brought up the point of feeling a difference when not being able to hear a difference and then all of a sudden, the rules changed.
 
???
 
All you're doing is cementing my conviction as to the bias nature of DBT.

A very nice sum up by the wikipedia page of ABX testing:
 
"A subject is presented with two known samples (sample A, the reference, and sample B, an alternative), and one unknown sample X, for three samples total. X is randomly selected from A and B, and the subject identifies X as being either A or B. If sample X cannot be determined reliably with a low p-value in a predetermined number of trials, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and it cannot be proven that there is a perceptible difference between samples A and B."
 
The bold part is what I said, it is about identifying the thing, not how it is identified (that does not mean there are better tests than others). That is the definition man, not what we say, it is how ABX (DBT) has been designed from the start, do not criticize things without knowledge of at least the basic definitions, you are just saying that you have decided to not care and keep believing what you want.
 
 
Edit: What is wrong with Head-fi today!!!! First it doesn't let me quote in the iPhone, and now it doesn't let me post links!!! It says I have no sufficient permissions for freaking linking!!! Sorry for this, I just had to get it out of my chest....

 

[beeman458]

you are just saying that you have decided to not care and keep believing what you want.
 
No, that's not what I'm doing.  But it seems that you're now playing some sort of "gotcha" game.
 
Good luck with that.

 

[Roger Strummer]

^So now that I have shown that you have not made a valid complaint at DBT itself and its theoretical bases, because you had no knowledge of exactly you are criticizing, I'm playing a "gotcha" game?  (what the hell is that?). So unless someone wants to bring more arguments or genuine questions, I'm done arguing... I'll just present an image that is as much argument as your last post:
 

 
Off to reading random XKCD comics and enjoying music and life 

.

 

[beeman458]

^So now that I have shown that you have not made a valid complaint at DBT itself
 
No you haven't, you've simply tried to deny the difference between hearing a difference and feeling a difference and in the same breath to make them the same.  You've done nothing to deal with the invalidity of the interpretation process.
 
Off to reading random XKCD comics...
 
Right now, I'm eyeballing pics of my new, super headphone cables.
 

It's all good.