[endless402]

how do you measure soundstage width, height, depth?

 

[sokolov91]

 
Quote:

Kees, with regards to your comment that blind testing is not considered proof by any scientist, I found that to be intriguing, so I went a googling and found that whilst not correct, it is not used anywhere as much as I thought that it was. From a 1998 paper in the journal of Scientific Exploration.

"A survey of recent papers published in a range of scientific journals
showed that the use of blind methodologies is very rare in the so-called
hard sciences. In the physical sciences, no blind experiments were found
among the 237 papers reviewed. In the biological sciences, there were 7
blind experiments out of 914 (0.8%). There was a higher proportion in the
medical sciences, 6 out of 102 (5.9%), and in psychology and animal behavior,
7 out of 143 (4.9%). By far the highest proportion (85.2%) was in parapsychology.
A survey of science departments in 11 British Universities
showed that blind methodologies are neither used nor taught in 22 out of 23
physics and chemistry departments, or in 14 out of 16 biochemistry and molecular
biology departments. By contrast, blind methodologies are sometimes
practiced and taught in 4 out of 8 genetics departments, and in 6 out of 8 physiology
departments. I propose a simple procedure that could be used to detect
possible experimenter effects in any branch of science, by comparing the
results of a given experiment conducted both under open and blind conditions."

A search of Science Magazine’s website finds no references to blind or ABX testing. Googling blind testing finds audiophile, wine, parapsychology and homeopathy references, where the aim is to disprove claims of effect. There is little to do with mainstream science., though this link is a good one to show where blind testing has been used effectively in industry with regards to a detector

http://www.skepdic.com/control.html

But there is no doubt that blind testing is a scientific approach that under the correct conditions is acceptable evidence

http://www.experiment-resources.com/

And in particular here

http://www.experiment-resources.com/double-blind-experiment.html

Testing against placebo happens all the time in scientific studies, especially medical ones, and is essentially ABX testing, just under a different name.
 
Testing a new medication vs a placebo is how they find out for a fact their drug actually works, and people are not just tricking themselves into feeling better. This parallels audio immensely and is extremely common.
 
So perhaps "ABX" does not show up specifically, but the same sort of testing happens all the time and is the ONLY accepted kind of proof in many cases.
 
It is no different for audio, just some people like to refute it because it doesn't "jive" with their belief systems.
 
Without ABX type testing, many fields of science would be no better than magic.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

how do you measure soundstage width, height, depth?

There is no need because soundstage size a personal and subjective interpretation. Finding out whether or not someone can hear the difference between cables is extremely simple. Either the person hears a difference, or does not. This is why the premise of a "debate" is ridiculous because there is nothing to argue about. It is and isn't and so far, everything proves, or everything valid as proof proves that there is no difference.
 
Hearing the difference between headphones is very easy to detect and measure even if specific things such as soundstage are hard. That is because the delay and cancellation of frequencies are unique to each ear, making it impossible to measure without exact replicas of the individuals ears.
 
People saying they hear difference is a very different thing from actually hearing a difference and there actually being a real difference. Kees's logic is flawed as others have pointed out. People saying they hear, is not actually fully acceptable evidence supporting they do. However that is not his fault because many people share this fault in logic due to loving their hobby to the point of being perhaps slightly blinded. It is simple for someone to prove they actually hear said differences through testing. The fact that the testing disproves these claims does not point to the testing being faulty... it points to the claims being BS -whether intentional or not.

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

how do you measure soundstage width, height, depth?

You can't.  But an enhancement or diminution of a soundstage's subjectively perceived width, height and depth (as frequently reported) can only be created by altered sound waves leaving drivers and entering ears, and that before/after alteration can be measured easily enough.

 

[Happy Camper]

Quote:

I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
 
I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

Well my home insurance policy has a rider for them.

 

[endless402]

You can't.  But an enhancement or diminution of a soundstage's subjectively perceived width, height and depth (as frequently reported) can only be created by altered sound waves leaving drivers and entering ears, and that before/after alteration can be measured easily enough.

 


How would the alteration be measured?
The overall sound is the same.

Keep in mind my experience with interconnects is only with speakers. I find that with headphones it's all the same

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

 
How would the alteration be measured? The overall sound is the same. 

Sorry, I meant to imply that if it was there, it could be measured, and if it couldn't be measured, it wasn't there.  But ... the sound could be the same, and yet the measurements might still be different.  This whole deal is about the threshold of audibility, which will inevitably be higher than the point at which measurable differences start to appear.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

A regular argument put forward by the pro-cable side is that the anti-cable side must have faulty hearing. Let us say that that is true and the pro-cable side do have better hearing. Why then do they also need to see a cable to get an accurately assess its sound? Why then do they fail and/or refuse to do tests which only involve listening for a difference?

 

[JerryLove]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Not true. Blind testing is not proof, nor is it considered to be proof by any scientist. "When external possebilities are removed"????? Is this in any way the case here?

I'm sorry. No scientist uses experimentation on a subject without the subjects knowledge of the conditions as validation of a model?
 
Can people see X-Rays with their naked eye? Prove it! Make sure not to use anything tantamount to a blind test.
 
Quote:

Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.

 
I'm not sure if I want to listen to a science lecture from someone who doesn't know the difference between "orbits" and "rotation", nor between "gravity" and "angular momentum".
 
The sun "rises" to an observer on earth because of the rotation of the Earth's surface. The rotation is caused by the conservation of angular momentum going back to the formation process of the Earth.

I'm curious. I can tell a B&W 801 apart from a Bose 201 in a blind test. Why can't you tell cables apart?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Not true. Blind testing is not proof, nor is it considered to be proof by any scientist. "When external possebilities are removed"????? Is this in any way the case here?

I'm sorry. No scientist uses experimentation on a subject without the subjects knowledge of the conditions as validation of a model?
 
Can people see X-Rays with their naked eye? Prove it! Make sure not to use anything tantamount to a blind test.
 
Quote:

Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.

 
I'm not sure if I want to listen to a science lecture from someone who doesn't know the difference between "orbits" and "rotation", nor between "gravity" and "angular momentum".
 
The sun "rises" to an observer on earth because of the rotation of the Earth's surface. The rotation is caused by the conservation of angular momentum going back to the formation process of the Earth.

I'm curious. I can tell a B&W 801 apart from a Bose 201 in a blind test. Why can't you tell cables apart?

A blind test removes other possibilities of identifying one cable from another, the main one being able to see the cable. A well conducted blind test will also remove or limit as much as is possible any tester or testee bias. I did not mean to suggest testing someone without their knowledge.
 
Worshiping the sun is an analogy meant to show how whilst something may appear to be linked, that link may not be the case and something else completely different and unrelated is the real link.
 
I'm curious too, as to why you think that being able to tell different speakers apart (not disputed by me and different speakers are picked out in blind tests) is in any way evidence that I (or any other person in blind testing) am at fault for not being able to tell cables apart.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

There are a number of issues with your chain of logic.
 
Firstly you assert
 
(A) I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling - but you do not provide any evidence for the truth of this assertion, viz you do not provide any evidence that any individuals can detect differences other than they say so, this is firmly in anecdotal territory. More correctly you would have to say that (A1) I do know a lot of people that (assert that they) can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling
 
then you assert
 
(B) There are measurable differences between cables - this is more or less ok, I have measured differences between some cables, though they were small in my tests,  but you do not say that the differences exist in the samples used by the subjects of proposition A (say for instance some cables were merely rebadged generic copper cables, they would measure pretty similarly)
 
 
then (C) so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables. - you do not need B for C to be true , A however needs to be true for C to be true , but A is not proven.
 
To use B you need another clause B1 to the effect that there must be measurable differences before there are audible differences, (this has some kind of face validity) but then you have the probem of at what magnitude do measurable differences become audible unless you assert B2 measurable differences are audible at which point you no longer need A
 
 

 

 

[Slackboy72]

Quote:

A regular argument put forward by the pro-cable side is that the anti-cable side must have faulty hearing. Let us say that that is true and the pro-cable side do have better hearing. Why then do they also need to see a cable to get an accurately assess its sound? Why then do they fail and/or refuse to do tests which only involve listening for a difference?

Another example we've seen here from a cable maker/seller is that if you can't hear it your system is not good enough.
That scheister should have been stuffed back under the rock he crawled out from under.
 

 

[mtntrance]

Thanks this thread just saved me $284.00 I was considering spending on a cable for my hd650.  Instead I am going to try a Grado 325i.  I don't know why I was starting to fall for the hype when on my home theatre system I primarily use and love Blue Jean cables and speaker wire.  Its amazing that it costs $300 for a headphone cable yet for the same amount of money gets you all the engineering and parts in a decent mid-fi amp-hi fi if you go audio gd.  Anyway I think I will hear more of a difference from HD650s to 325i's than I would with a new cable on the HD650s-not better just different.  

 

[Slackboy72]

 
Quote:

Thanks this thread just saved me $284.00 I was considering spending on a cable for my hd650.  Instead I am going to try a Grado 325i.  I don't know why I was starting to fall for the hype when on my home theatre system I primarily use and love Blue Jean cables and speaker wire.  Its amazing that it costs $300 for a headphone cable yet for the same amount of money gets you all the engineering and parts in a decent mid-fi amp-hi fi if you go audio gd.  Anyway I think I will hear more of a difference from HD650s to 325i's than I would with a new cable on the HD650s-not better just different.  

Do the people who buy these cables never stop to think that a manufacturer of a $500 set of headphones (a flagship product like the HD650 no less) that they've spent millions researching and developing would just stick a crappy component like a dodgy cable on it to save a couple of bucks? I suspect that the cable on the HD800 is a flashier bit of kit just to appease the pseudo-scientific expectations of the 'cable' crowd.

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

Mods, I recommend locking this thread. It has run its course and saved someone some money. The big guns arrived, so there's nothing left to do but put this one to bed...