[LarsMonsen]

ROBSCIX: This is the sound science part of the forum, and while the first post was a bit obnoxious, we generally try to base our claims on facts. With that in mind I don't quite see how your post contributes with anything we haven't heard a few times earlier...
 
I've read a lot about different DBT, but what I would like to see is what happens if we remove the human factor. In other words simply see if there are any differences through making various measurings (I don't know what kind of measurings, FR graph perhaps?). Does anyone know if such testing has ever been performed? And I'm not just talking about measuring the cables' capacitance, impedance etc. but actually measuring the sound that comes out of the speaker Surely if we can't measure any differences between using a wire hanger and expensive speaker cables, no one can hear it? If it's the other way around we will probably keep discussing this for centuries anyway

 

[Spelaeus]

 
Quote:

ROBSCIX: This is the sound science part of the forum, and while the first post was a bit obnoxious, we generally try to base our claims on facts. With that in mind I don't quite see how your post contributes with anything we haven't heard a few times earlier...
 
I've read a lot about different DBT, but what I would like to see is what happens if we remove the human factor. In other words simply see if there are any differences through making various measurings (I don't know what kind of measurings, FR graph perhaps?). Does anyone know if such testing has ever been performed? And I'm not just talking about measuring the cables' capacitance, impedance etc. but actually measuring the sound that comes out of the speaker Surely if we can't measure any differences between using a wire hanger and expensive speaker cables, no one can hear it? If it's the other way around we will probably keep discussing this for centuries anyway

I'm relatively certain that such experiments have already been done and no measurable difference existed, though I'd have to do a little searching to find them again. I'll post them as soon as I do. When they're brought up, typically the pro-cable argument has been that "we don't really know what to measure for and that there could be factors not taken into account."
 
Edit: I'm having a little bit of trouble since it seems like every promising link that I've run into so far now goes to the incorrect forum post. I'm not entirely sure why, but I've noticed that a lot of older thread links no longer work. If anyone else can find one of them, it'd be appreciated. I'll keep looking in the meantime.

 

[beeman458]

Spelaeus wrote:
 
So you're really going to try to tell us that someone who was randomly guessing in a DBT based cable scenario when there was no difference between the two cables would guess which cable was A and which cable was B 0% of the time?
 
That's not what I wrote.  What I'm writing in the simple, DBT's, as laid out, can't tell the difference between guessing and being able to consistently hear a difference at saaaay, twenty percent of the time.  But the terms of DBT information interpretation are such that no matter what a person really can hear, doesn't exist and arbitrarily only exists if you're hearing what you say you're hearing, plus seventy percent of the time.  Ya gotta love capricious standards.
 
Like it or not, DBT is as invalid of a test method, in this case, as the day is long.  The point, there isn't a test around that can accurately detect what a person is or isn't hearing when it comes to the cable game.  This, no matter how much the "experts" jump up and down and profess the accuracy of their taught thinking; bias.
 
But, hey, there's always beer.

 

[Roger Strummer]

^ So you decided to not read or not care about nick_charles response or mine, right? Bottom line you seem to know nothing (or extremely little) about statistics... or maybe you are a Bayesian Statistician in disguise 

 (sorry for the very bad joke

).

 

[Uncle Erik]

What about a test where you just give listening impressions of a particular, unknown, cable? Go through, say, about ten cables. Give each one a rating, describe the sound, and so on. Some of the cables would be "good" ones while others would be deliberately defective, strings of rusty paperclips, and so on. And, of course, a few in the sample would be identical.

I think that believers would not be able to discern a difference between a coathanger with a resistor in the middle and some purified cryo'ed silver. It would demonstrate that all "heard" effects in a cable are the result of expectations and placebo. If someone can't tell the difference between a paperclip, silver and a Radio Shack cable, it would show that they aren't hearing anything at all in a cable. A few tests have already been conducted where people found "good" sound from a coathanger.

Also, DBT and statisics are very much so valid. They've been rigorously tested over the years and repeatedly produce valid results. The only reason believers reject DBT is because it disagrees with their incorrect world view. If DBT actually showed a difference in cables, they'd trumpet it as a triumph of science. Unfortunately, if your cherished beliefs don't hold up to testing, you have to let them go. Plenty of theories have been discarded over the years. The thing about cables is that they are caught up in status, fashion and the sex appeal of possessing supernatural knowledge.

 

[beeman458]

Roger Strummer wrote:
 
^ So you decided to not read or not care about nick_charles response or mine, right?
 
Nope, never wrote that.  I've done my best to explain my position and anything more is just repeating myself.  It doesn't bother me that you disagree and want nothing to do with my statements.  It doesn't bother me that I haven't cracked a book on statistics as this isn't a valid exercise on statistics but is just a case of writing rules to satisfy one's need to be right, bias thinking.  It's pretty bad when you have to make things up and then teach this BS to others so as to get your way.
 
Bottom line you seem to know nothing (or extremely little) about statistics...
 
Yes, that must be it and yes, again, I haven't cracked a book on statistics.  And in this case, one doesn't need to know statistics in order to see what's going on.  When you or others want to come up with a valid test, worth discussing, I'm all ears.  Again, there are no valid tests in existence today that in this case, can tell guessing from accurate identification when considering the analogue nature of the human sensory system.  When you or others want to discuss the analogue nature of the human sensor system and include this thinking in your statistical analysis, then the conversation can progress.  Until then we're mired in a childish debate/conversation of we're right and you're wrong and we have our taught BS (bias) to back us up.
 
Our hypothesis is that humans cannot hear a difference between cables. (Null hypothesis)
 
Thanks to you and others for taking the time to write about something that I've read many versions of in the past.  I have no problem with the hypothesis and I have no problem with the math.  Repeating my position regarding the analogue nature of the human sensory system will only be that, repeating.  What you and others are missing, or don't want to deal with is that the rules used to interpret the results are designed to support your hypothesis, which shows bias as it doesn't take into consideration, human's true biological nature.
 
Sorry, but DBT test interpretation rules need to be amended to include the human element going beyond the simple of coin flipping and the use of a super majority of seventy plus percent.  Until then, the results in this case are exactly what they are, bias.
 

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Spelaeus wrote:
 
So you're really going to try to tell us that someone who was randomly guessing in a DBT based cable scenario when there was no difference between the two cables would guess which cable was A and which cable was B 0% of the time?
 
That's not what I wrote.  What I'm writing in the simple, DBT's, as laid out, can't tell the difference between guessing and being able to consistently hear a difference at saaaay, twenty percent of the time.  But the terms of DBT information interpretation are such that no matter what a person really can hear, doesn't exist and arbitrarily only exists if you're hearing what you say you're hearing, plus seventy percent of the time.  Ya gotta love capricious standards.
 
Like it or not, DBT is as invalid of a test method, in this case, as the day is long.  The point, there isn't a test around that can accurately detect what a person is or isn't hearing when it comes to the cable game.  This, no matter how much the "experts" jump up and down and profess the accuracy of their taught thinking; bias.
 
But, hey, there's always beer.

It's just since a couple of your posts back that I now fully understand what you've been getting at and how DBT's could fail in detecting a genuine, though subtle difference.  However, I must admit, in the defence of cable skeptics, that if someone claims that he can easily tell a difference between the cables that he uses and that one provides a night and day improvement over another or that it's like a veil has been lifted in the sound when using one cable as opposed to another, then it really aught to be easy to detect a difference in a blind test environment more than 70% of the times.  No?
 
In my experience, I do think I hear a difference with a couple cables that I have when using them with my K702's and now my HD800's.  In neither of the cases is the difference like night and day.  It's subtle and for the life of me, the differences fade when I attempt to A/B the cables in question to pinpoint or better characterise the differences.  When I use one for a while and switch to the other the difference is more apparent.  I've never formally volume matched and for this reason, I cannot be too confident about my findings.  The same applies with amps that I've switched and DAC's as well.  Never really night and day differences.  Never... and for this reason, I can sympathise with those who have similar skepticism about the claims made about the wonders of some of the more spectacular looking tube amps out there.  There's much placebo effect based on expectations built into those designs.  I've heard night and day differences only with cans and the difference is way more drastic when switching to one after a long period of listening solely to the other.
 
Quote:

What about a test where you just give listening impressions of a particular, unknown, cable? Go through, say, about ten cables. Give each one a rating, describe the sound, and so on. Some of the cables would be "good" ones while others would be deliberately defective, strings of rusty paperclips, and so on. And, of course, a few in the sample would be identical.

I think that believers would not be able to discern a difference between a coathanger with a resistor in the middle and some purified cryo'ed silver. It would demonstrate that all "heard" effects in a cable are the result of expectations and placebo. If someone can't tell the difference between a paperclip, silver and a Radio Shack cable, it would show that they aren't hearing anything at all in a cable. A few tests have already been conducted where people found "good" sound from a coathanger.

Also, DBT and statisics are very much so valid. They've been rigorously tested over the years and repeatedly produce valid results. The only reason believers reject DBT is because it disagrees with their incorrect world view. If DBT actually showed a difference in cables, they'd trumpet it as a triumph of science. Unfortunately, if your cherished beliefs don't hold up to testing, you have to let them go. Plenty of theories have been discarded over the years. The thing about cables is that they are caught up in status, fashion and the sex appeal of possessing supernatural knowledge.

I agree that a positive test proves without doubt what it claims.
 
It's the negative result that is the crunch and this is where beeman's criticism takes center-stage.  The DBT statistical criteria to prove validity cannot differentiate between guessing and a genuine but low positive pickup rate.  But you've said it already... 'Why pay so much for such a small benefit, even if it turned out to be demonstrably real, whatever the methodology that's uncovered to demonstrate it with a reasonable degree of accepted validity.'
 
I'm happy to see the discussion going this route.  It's very scientific in that it's looking at the methodology and how we interpret and use statistical analysis.  Statistical analysis isn't perfect and furthermore, it's very much divorced from experimental methodology and its validity.  You could use wonderful statistical analysis but end up with rubbish results because of poor statistical application or poor experimental methodology.

 

[beeman458]

Prog Rock Man wrote:
 
You say that you can hear the difference between cables.
 
Nope.  Check what I've written in the past.  I write that "some" cables add to the emotional appeal of the music and some cables take away from the emotional impact as I feel the music emotionally.  Sometimes, I have to A/B many times in order to zero in on a specific area of the music in which to determine where the difference might lay.  Nor does identifying the change in the highs, explain the overall positive/negative emotional response.  It's not overt.  The changes that I "feel" emotionally is different than "hearing a difference."  It's an over all feeling as opposed to an easily identifiable hearing sensation.
 
In my case, it's about emotional impact as opposed to actual hearing differences.  That's why I've suggested in the past of wiring somebody's brain up or doing a live brain scan to monitor brain center activity as opposed to overtly simple, ABX, right/wrong, arbitrary, seventy plus percent statistical tests.  In this case, you guys really do need to try a different method as your current evaluation choice has fail written all over the front page.

 

[beeman458]

Aimlink wrote:
 
It's just since a couple of your posts back that I now fully understand what you've been getting at and how DBT's could fail in detecting a genuine, though subtle difference.
 
Thanks!  Sorry if I did a poor job in conveying the concept.
 

 
However, I must admit, in the defence of cable skeptics, that if someone claims that he can easily tell a difference between the cables that he uses and that one provides a night and day improvement over another or that it's like a veil has been lifted in the sound when using one cable as opposed to another, then it really aught to be easy to detect a difference in a blind test environment more than 70% of the times.  No?
 
I'm in agreement and agreed, folks need to tone down their aggrandized statements.
 
In neither of the cases is the difference like night and day.  It's subtle and for the life of me, the differences fade when I attempt to A/B the cables in question to pinpoint or better characterise the differences.
 
As a suggestion, go a step further down into the sub-conscious area of your mind and evaluate your emotional response as opposed to evaluating your hearing response.  In the simple, does it put a smile on your face or does it take the smile away as your emotions register disappointment?  I'm serious when I suggest checking for the above.

 

[Spelaeus]

Hm, I think perhaps part of the problem is that some people are thinking that DBT means the same thing as ABX. And thank you Aimlink, I do see Beeman's point a bit better now. I think that I was getting caught up in his "analogue sensory system" terminology which makes my inner neuroscience nerd angry.
 
An ABX type test where a subject claimed that cable A sounded better than cable B, and was then asked not only to identify cable A and cable B in a blind setting, but to tell if cable X is cable A or cable B is a poor test setup, and I have argued against using a similar setup for lossy vs. lossless tests in the past. It just creates confounding variables, audio memory being what it is. And it *is* an unfair test.
 
On the other hand, if you claim that cable A sounds better than cable B and are then presented with cable A and cable B obscured so that you can not tell which is which by sight, and then asked to identify which is which after being able to switch between and compare the two as much as you'd like... I do not believe that is an unfair test. If a difference is audible, being able to distinguish the two shouldn't be subject to random chance at all (though 100% accuracy should not be expected either since some mistakes should be expected). And I would say that 70% accuracy over multiple trials is acceptable.
 
I guess it comes down to the tricks that your mind can play on itself. If you know that you have two different items and are being asked to identify the two, it's much easier than when you have the possibility that the two items are the same and end up "tricking" yourself into hearing that the two items are the same. And that's just as much of an issue as "tricking" yourself into hearing that two items which are the same are different. But the first scenario gives false results when the subject falls prey to self-deception. The second does not, as even if the claimed differences do result from the placebo effect, they difference still needs to be verified by identifying the the correct cables.
 
To sum it up, in the first scenario you can find yourself with a false negative when differences would be consciously audible in a different setup, but in the second getting a positive outcome cannot occur if there is not actually a difference (barring random chance, of course. But that's why results with statistical significance over multiple trials are required).

 

[LarsMonsen]

Knowing that you are using a "good" cable could set you in a different mood, hence change the way you "feel" emotionally. Could you pinpoint this certain "feel" in a DBT not knowing what cable you hear in use? Somehow I doubt that, and I think this kind of discussion reminds of some religious belief or something. I mean why would we need scientific evidence that cables make a change when our strong belief and fate is enough to hear the difference? I know that sounds real far fetch, but that's really how I begin to think of many people in the audiophile world
Quote:

Prog Rock Man wrote:
 
You say that you can hear the difference between cables.
 
Nope.  Check what I've written in the past.  I write that "some" cables add to the emotional appeal of the music and some cables take away from the emotional impact as I feel the music emotionally.  Sometimes, I have to A/B many times in order to zero in on a specific area of the music in which to determine where the difference might lay.  Nor does identifying the change in the highs, explain the overall positive/negative emotional response.  It's not overt.  The changes that I "feel" emotionally is different than "hearing a difference."  It's an over all feeling as opposed to an easily identifiable hearing sensation.
 
In my case, it's about emotional impact as opposed to actual hearing differences.  That's why I've suggested in the past of wiring somebody's brain up or doing a live brain scan to monitor brain center activity as opposed to overtly simple, ABX, right/wrong, arbitrary, seventy plus percent statistical tests.  In this case, you guys really do need to try a different method as your current evaluation choice has fail written all over the front page.

 

[beeman458]

Speleaus wrote:
 
I think that I was getting caught up in his "analogue sensory system" terminology which makes my inner neuroscience nerd angry.
 
Now, now, there's plenty of beer for everybody.  You'll find that if you take the time to get past your bias', you'll find that my thoughts are on "terra ferma," including my comments regarding the analogue nature of the human sensory system.
 
Google: "analogue nature of the human sensory system."
 
http://vintageelectronicsrepair.com/?p=65
 
Everything you hear is analog. This is because the human ear is an analog sensory system.
 
---snip---
 
But hearing requires analog raw data for the ear to function.
 
I found the below article to be relevant regarding emotional responses.
 
http://musicbrainerblogger.blogspot.com/2008/12/music-structure-and-emotional-response.html
 
I'm not whiffing anything in my characterization of the human condition.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

It's just since a couple of your posts back that I now fully understand what you've been getting at and how DBT's could fail in detecting a genuine, though subtle difference.  However, I must admit, in the defence of cable skeptics, that if someone claims that he can easily tell a difference between the cables that he uses and that one provides a night and day improvement over another or that it's like a veil has been lifted in the sound when using one cable as opposed to another, then it really aught to be easy to detect a difference in a blind test environment more than 70% of the times.  No?
 
In my experience, I do think I hear a difference with a couple cables that I have when using them with my K702's and now my HD800's.  In neither of the cases is the difference like night and day.  It's subtle and for the life of me, the differences fade when I attempt to A/B the cables in question to pinpoint or better characterise the differences.  When I use one for a while and switch to the other the difference is more apparent.  I've never formally volume matched and for this reason, I cannot be too confident about my findings.  The same applies with amps that I've switched and DAC's as well.  Never really night and day differences.  Never... and for this reason, I can sympathise with those who have similar skepticism about the claims made about the wonders of some of the more spectacular looking tube amps out there.  There's much placebo effect based on expectations built into those designs.  I've heard night and day differences only with cans and the difference is way more drastic when switching to one after a long period of listening solely to the other.
 

I agree that a positive test proves without doubt what it claims.
 
It's the negative result that is the crunch and this is where beeman's criticism takes center-stage.  The DBT statistical criteria to prove validity cannot differentiate between guessing and a genuine but low positive pickup rate.  But you've said it already... 'Why pay so much for such a small benefit, even if it turned out to be demonstrably real, whatever the methodology that's uncovered to demonstrate it with a reasonable degree of accepted validity.'
 
I'm happy to see the discussion going this route.  It's very scientific in that it's looking at the methodology and how we interpret and use statistical analysis.  Statistical analysis isn't perfect and furthermore, it's very much divorced from experimental methodology and its validity.  You could use wonderful statistical analysis but end up with rubbish results because of poor statistical application or poor experimental methodology.

 

Now I get what beeman is getting at, and his problem is NOT with DBT's and Statistical Hypothesis testing, but with the interpretation of the results. Crap I had already written a defensive and not so nice post aimlink! I had to start all over again!! 

 
Quote:

Aimlink wrote:
 
It's just since a couple of your posts back that I now fully understand what you've been getting at and how DBT's could fail in detecting a genuine, though subtle difference.
 
Thanks!  Sorry if I did a poor job in conveying the concept.
 

 
However, I must admit, in the defence of cable skeptics, that if someone claims that he can easily tell a difference between the cables that he uses and that one provides a night and day improvement over another or that it's like a veil has been lifted in the sound when using one cable as opposed to another, then it really aught to be easy to detect a difference in a blind test environment more than 70% of the times.  No?
 
I'm in agreement and agreed, folks need to tone down their aggrandized statements.
 
In neither of the cases is the difference like night and day.  It's subtle and for the life of me, the differences fade when I attempt to A/B the cables in question to pinpoint or better characterise the differences.
 
As a suggestion, go a step further down into the sub-conscious area of your mind and evaluate your emotional response as opposed to evaluating your hearing response.  In the simple, does it put a smile on your face or does it take the smile away as your emotions register disappointment?  I'm serious when I suggest checking for the above.

 
 
Feel free to give us references to that analogue nature you are talking about, remember we scientists are one of the most open minded people (we are wrong way more often we would like

), but without references or clear definitions a scientist cannot work.
 
The last paragraph you say is not scientifically valid (which says nothing about it being true), so I won't say anything about that.
 
I want to clarify, a Null Hypothesis test does not require that  particular individual has more than 70% correct, it is all about the average, because by seeing the average you control the risk you mention of being wrong (although it never discards it completely). First to be statistically valid it cannot be a test performed by only one individual, but by many, so the fact that one only gets a low percentage (say 50%) good proves absolutely nothing, neither that other one has 100%, but is the average what is important (and is related to the law of large numbers). Basically you are trying to minimize the risk that the result you are seeing was just a guess (that is why the freaking coin appears, lets just forget that).
 
That is why statistical hypothesis tests deal with probabilities, even with an awesomely well performed experiment there is risk of error (the famous p-value), technically speaking you cannot say the null hypothesis is accepted, but it casts doubt to whether it is not true (just as correlation is not causation, but hints at something happening). Yeah, that is why the result is to say: there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis, that is very important.
 
So scientifically I'll repeat: there is no evidence (statistically significant) to say that people hear differences in cables, that's it, no more. I never said there can be no difference, but the results give me doubts, and with doubts a scientist prefers to err in the side of accepting the Null hypothesis since false positives generally are more much damaging than false negatives (the idea is that its better to set free a guilty guy than to imprison an innocent).
 
Here  and here are little wikipedia articles (which is easy-ish and not that thorough, but not bad at all), there are (valid) critiques to the method (it was the reason why I mentioned the Bayesian Statistician thing), in case you are interested. Anyways, have some beer for standing in what you believe in, I respect that!
 

 (I just saw your last post with some references, so disregard what I said about that earlier, I'm tired of editing this post)

 

[beeman458]

Crap I had already written a defensive and not so nice post aimlink! I had to start all over again!! 

 
Bob and weave, bob and weave.
 

 
Feel free to give us references to that analogue nature you are talking about, remember we scientists are one of the most open minded people (we are wrong way more often we would like

), but without references or clear definitions a scientist cannot work.
 
Look to the post above yours as I was in the midst of doing so via editing as you were formulating your above post.  This stuff is readily available but I guess it's more fun to pull the wings off of a poor, sweet innocent honey bee.
 
(Whistling Icon goes here)
 
The last paragraph you say is not scientifically valid (which says nothing about it being true), so I won't say anything about that.
 
Sure it is.  Time for you to do some more investigation regarding human psychology and the impact music has on the human condition; emotional response.  That's why I suggested the need to do brain scans as the brain centers would light up or fail to light up.  Pretty much, it would be on or off at that point.
 
I want to clarify, a Null Hypothesis test does not require that  particular individual has more than 70% correct, it is all about the average, because by seeing the average you control the risk you mention of being wrong (although it never discards it completely).
 
Actually it does because it invalidates successes by rolling the successes in with failures.  Sorry, they have to stay separate and you still haven't dealt with the analogue nature of human hearing.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

 
Look to the post above yours as I was in the midst of doing so via editing as you were formulating your above post.  This stuff is readily available but I guess it's more fun to pull the wings off of a poor, sweet innocent honey bee.
 
(Whistling Icon goes here)
 
 
 
Yeah, sorry about that.
 
Sure it is.  Time for you to do some more investigation regarding human psychology and the impact music has on the human condition; emotional response.  That's why I suggested the need to do brain scans as the brain centers would light up or fail to light up.  Pretty much, it would be on or off at that point.
 

 
The brain scan is scientifically valid, not the smile on your face, my point is that personal anecdotes are not evidence.
 

But my point keeps being valid, your problem is  with the interpretation of the results, not with the test per se (or at leat it seems that way) as I said in my last post. Remember the scientific conclusion is: there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis, in other words there is no evidence to say that all humans hear differences.