[wavoman]

Smelly -- I agree with your point that many of the papers published in AES do not use statistics properly, but worse: the correct statistical papers (and the ones by statisticians) are focused on the A/B/X testing protocol, which has a lot of flaws in its own right.

You know my credentials: PhD in Statistics from Yale, A.B. in Statistics summa cum Laude from Princeton, winner of The American Statistical Association Theory and Methods Prize, co-author of the now classic nonparametric multivariate two-sample test (with thousands of citations). But this is all well-worn ground here ... many posts and threads. What's the point? Audio testing is very hard; very few good studies have been done. We all know that.

But you also know the basic answer -- it is obvious that there are NOT large, audible differences in cables, DACs, or loudspeaker AMPS (above the total junk level) that can be perceived by the population at large. If there were, it would have been revealed by now, and just the opposite is true.

This is settled. What is not settled is the more subtle question: can a well-trained, golden-ear'd audiophile reliably and blindly perceive these differences, in real-world, relaxed home listening situations, and are the differences large enough to merit spending money (some subjectivity in this last part).

Tough question.

 

[Happy Camper]

Well-trained listeners are the key, not long time listeners, trained listeners. If you can explain the things to listen for to a student, you should be able to quantify it.

 

[Jackblack]

lol.. I'm guessing Scientists have better things to do than just hanging out at internet forums. Although, it would be nice to see one.

 

[atomiccow]

For the record, I've never met an academic who referred to themselves with the vague title of "scientist" or whom only respected the views of Ph.D holders.

From the way you talk, you don't sound much like a credit to the scientific community.

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Smelly -- I agree with your point that many of the papers published in AES do not use statistics properly, but worse: the correct statistical papers (and the ones by statisticians) are focused on the A/B/X testing protocol, which has a lot of flaws in its own right.

No methodology is perfect. But multiple experiments conducted by independent groups with different methodologies that all point to the same conclusion... hmmm....

Quote:

You know my credentials: PhD in Statistics from Yale, A.B. in Statistics summa cum Laude from Princeton, winner of The American Statistical Association Theory and Methods Prize,.. Audio testing is very hard; very few good studies have been done. We all know that.

I personally think the existing studies I linked above have sufficient power to support the theory that there probably are not large, easily-audible differences among cables, dac's, and power amplifiers. My major criticism is that they are not published in major peer-reviewed journals, but they are the best level of evidence I have seen to date.

Quote:

But you also know the basic answer -- it is obvious that there are NOT large, audible differences in cables, DACs, or loudspeaker AMPS (above the total junk level) that can be perceived by the population at large. If there were, it would have been revealed by now, and just the opposite is true.

100% agree. However, it would be interesting if an individual with extensive experience in experimental design/interpretation could read the same published trials and conclude otherwise.

Quote:

This is settled. What is not settled is the more subtle question: can a well-trained, golden-ear'd audiophile reliably and blindly perceive these differences, in real-world, relaxed home listening situations, and are the differences large enough to merit spending money (some subjectivity in this last part).

I think this is difficult to demonstrate from a practical standpoint. Being able to show small differences usually requires a large sample size, as you know, and as you add requirements like long listening times, you make the study less and less practical. good luck!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackblack /img/forum/go_quote.gif lol.. I'm guessing Scientists have better things to do than just hanging out at internet forums. Although, it would be nice to see one.

Yep. Either that or they realize that attempting to engage in a truly scientific discussion on this particular forum is futile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomiccow /img/forum/go_quote.gif For the record, I've never met an academic who referred to themselves with the vague title of "scientist" or whom only respected the views of Ph.D holders.

For the record, nobody here (myself included) has referred to him/herself as a "scientist," as you insinuate.

Quote:

From the way you talk, you don't sound much like a credit to the scientific community.

Nor do you, assuming you even belong to it.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't seen any. I'm just curious. Are there actually any SCIENTISTS or RESEARCHERS here that: a) hold either a Ph.D. in a natural science discipline (i.e. NOT engineering and NOT in an applied science) or an M.D. - AND - b) regularly design or interpret scientific experiments and/or papers designed to test hypotheses and draw conclusions - AND - c) are personally comfortable with statistical analysis ??? If so, what do you think about the published papers and experiments related to blinded, controlled listening tests of amps/cables/dac's? (My prediction is zero people will meet a, b, and c, but there will be a lot of hateful and not-terribly-useful replies).

Smelly, you're a troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Smelly -- I agree with your point that many of the papers published in AES do not use statistics properly, but worse: the correct statistical papers (and the ones by statisticians) are focused on the A/B/X testing protocol, which has a lot of flaws in its own right. You know my credentials: PhD in Statistics from Yale, A.B. in Statistics summa cum Laude from Princeton, winner of The American Statistical Association Theory and Methods Prize, co-author of the now classic nonparametric multivariate two-sample test (with thousands of citations). But this is all well-worn ground here ... many posts and threads. What's the point? Audio testing is very hard; very few good studies have been done. We all know that. But you also know the basic answer -- it is obvious that there are NOT large, audible differences in cables, DACs, or loudspeaker AMPS (above the total junk level) that can be perceived by the population at large. If there were, it would have been revealed by now, and just the opposite is true. This is settled. What is not settled is the more subtle question: can a well-trained, golden-ear'd audiophile reliably and blindly perceive these differences, in real-world, relaxed home listening situations, and are the differences large enough to merit spending money (some subjectivity in this last part). Tough question.

Wavo, right to the point, as always....

USG

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't seen any. I'm just curious. Are there actually any SCIENTISTS or RESEARCHERS here that can be duped into helping me validate my beliefs by interpreting the results of some experiments the way I want them to be interpreted, except anyone who knows enough about the subject involved who could invalidate the results?

FTFY.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif there will be a lot of hateful and not-terribly-useful replies.

If you know that what you're about to say is vitriolic, why not change it? You might find that the responses you get are much less hateful and much more useful.

I also suggest you read through some of the excellent discussions in the archive. Some of your recent questions (such as this) have been covered numerous times.

 

[DanielCox]

I meet the second two criteria.
Does it really matter? PhDs and researchers are so focused on their own subject area that their knowledge of sound would be equal to that of anyone with a bit of time on their hands.
You don't need to be Van Gogh to know a painting is a piece of ****. Likewise here.

 

[SmellyGas]

Here's my theory, and it's based on extensive observations of people on this forum:

I believe that people who:

1) have read the published studies/papers (several linked above) that consist of controlled, blind listening tests of amps/cables/dac's, AND
2) still believe that amps/cables/dac's make LARGE, EASILY-AUDIBLE differences in sound, as is commonly claimed,

are actually people who are not strongly familiar with experimental design, the scientific method, research statistics, the concept of generalizability, and/or other aspects of conducting research.

This is why I was hoping to see if there were any people who DEFINITELY (not just possibly) were familiar and experienced with these aspects of research, to see if they could read the same papers and come to any other conclusion about amps/cabls/dac's making LARGE, EASILY-AUDIBLE differences in sound.

 

[Bullseye]

SmellyGas. Yours is another approach I didn't think about. I have read before all those links you gave here now. I have read other tests as well, and got to my own conclusions you already know about.

However I believe you are asking too much. I wish I were wrong, but for what I have read all this time is that the majority don't give much thought to their experiences. They also don't know how to make good conclusions.

I have repeated that the biggest problem about all this "comparisons, reviews, tests, etc" is that people can make very easy and/or vague conclusions out of them. They just don't care whether something is more probable than any other, even if it goes out of logic.

I really would like to see people opening their eyes and realizing which claims are feasible and which arent. We that are saying this don't get any benefit from it, we are not winning any money by saying all of this stuff (DBT, cables snake oil, etc), and yet there will be people who think we are saying this because we are bad or don't want them to enjoy their music.

Heck that attitude is stupid. We are just giving another perspective based on something measurable, something that remains, not just subjective opinion that can change. I really don't know how to make people realize that data (yes related to science, measurements, and such) is what brings improvement. Not just luck, and opinions.

Hope at least some of this is useful for someone.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's my theory, and it's based on extensive observations of people on this forum: I believe that people who: 1) have read the published studies/papers (several linked above) that consist of controlled, blind listening tests of amps/cables/dac's, AND 2) still believe that amps/cables/dac's make LARGE, EASILY-AUDIBLE differences in sound, as is commonly claimed, are actually people who are not strongly familiar with experimental design, the scientific method, research statistics, the concept of generalizability, and/or other aspects of conducting research. This is why I was hoping to see if there were any people who DEFINITELY (not just possibly) were familiar and experienced with these aspects of research, to see if they could read the same papers and come to any other conclusion about amps/cabls/dac's making LARGE, EASILY-AUDIBLE differences in sound.

Why not do a double blind test to prove your point

 

[BigTony]

eecck ..

I actually meet a/b/c ...

Guesd thats why no-one listens to me, or enjoys my lectures!

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTony /img/forum/go_quote.gif eecck .. I actually meet a/b/c ... Guesd thats why no-one listens to me, or enjoys my lectures!

Ha! Well, this isn't going to make you any more popular...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dr Stupid here, what's your question?

Hello, there. To you, and anyone else who happens to meet a/b/c above and is interested, what are your thoughts with regard to the questions:

1) Do differences among cables, DAC's, and loudspeaker amps result in LARGE, EASILY AUDIBLE differences in sound reproduction? (which is basically a common claim that people make)

2) How valid/sound are the existing studies that use blind listening A/B methodologies?

Here are some papers to start:
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/To%20Tweak%20or%20Not.pdf
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

Thanks.

 

[Drag0n]

I find some set ups show much more of a difference in connected equipment than others.
On sensitive magnepan speakers i heard a very noticable diffference between Synergistic Research cables and Tara Labs and MIT. But some cables dont show much difference compared to others. My system doesnt show a huge difference between cables, but Martin Logan and Magnepan speakers seem to show it with certain cables.
This is just what ive personally heard. YMMV.