Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
2 - I suggest you go speak to those that claim "large" differences in cables and ask them to define what they mean by large. Please stop derailing this thread by repeating the same questions over and over again, even though they've been answered numerous times.
|
If my very simple and obvious question had been answered anywhere near to my satisfaction, I obviously wouldn't be asking it again. (Hint: responding with "stop derailing this thread, we're busy" like you did doesn't reall constitute a satisfactory response.)[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Because it makes a difference to you, because you can hear it, or think you can, and you like it, and it makes you feel wonderful, and you can afford it. You really do hear it in your home, even if you fail a blind test. Call this placebo effect?? Who cares? You really hear it.
|
I'm confused. Nobody doubts that the placebo effect can account for why people hear differences among amps/dac's/cables. But I thought the question was whether cables/amps/dac's THEMSELVES had audible differences? If you didn't care about eliminating the contribution of the placebo effect, why even do BLIND testing?
Quote:
Now I buy my ties from street vendors in Manhattan for even less than Target -- I have to wear ties when I represent my company -- but some of the people I call on buy ties from Neiman Marcus, and these are smart, "with it" people. Why do they do this? They like the way they look and feel in the expensive tie, even though in a lineup (like a blind test) 99.999% of the earth's population (probably more) could not pick out the fellow wearing the expensive tie.
I have a name for this. I call it "life". |
I understand you necktie example. Some people buy expensive ties because they like they way they make them feel and they can afford them. Some buy cheap ties because they look exactly the same to 99% of the population. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Similarly, if people bought expensive amps/dac's/cables because they LIKE the way the LOOK, they can brag to their friends, and NOT because they thought it made their stereo systems sound better, that would also be fine. HOWEVER, people buy expensive amps/dac's/cables because they THINK it makes dramatic improvements in sound quality. Using your example, this would be like people buying expensive neckties because they thought they LOOKED much better than the cheap ones, despite the fact that they were both manufactured in the same factory and were not distinguishable with the labels removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Quality of ketchup may not be vastly important to you if you only ate one hotdog a day. Eat more hotdogs a day and quality of ketchup increases in importance. Some people listen to music 5-10 hours a day, in which case they might feel cables to be essential.
|
Some people here claim that in order to hear an difference between cables, it requires 5-10 hours of careful listening to each. Now, if you only listen to music 5-10 hours a day, based on this information, you may or may not have been able to distinguish between the two cables anyway during your normal daily listening!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Whether or not it is a positive control here ultimately depends on whether there exists a real difference between the two set ups. If there isn't a real difference between the two set ups, then it's not a positive control, because there is nothing to differentiate between.
|
Yeah, strictly speaking, it would not be a positive control. However, you STILL need to demonstrate that your equipment setup + listeners are able to identify and report differences (i.e. validate your experimental apparatus) - you can call it what you wish.
Quote:
| My understanding of your experimental design was for one part of the experiment (unblinded), the testers know when they are listening to different equipment, and you ask to see if they can detect the difference, and they can- but then when the experiment is done blinded, then they can no longer detect a difference. I interpret that data as suggesting that no difference between the two set ups existing- thus their ability to tell the difference between the two set ups in the unblinded test didn't exist |
This type of experiment has been published. IF you think about it, the independent variable is "blinded/unblinded. It is used as a good way to test the hypothesis that audible differences between amps/dacs/cables are eliminated when listeners are blinded. If the hypothesis is confirmed, then the most likely explanation is that listener perceptions were influenced by their expectations when unblinded = placebo effect.
Quote:
| This really isn't supposed to be a proper positive control- what I am doing this for is to get an objective measurement of how 'different' things have to be, before the listeners can detect a difference. Doing this by starting with the lowest order bits just seemed like an easy way to start off. We could replace 'randomizing lowest order bits', with anything really that would let us create measurable difference between the set ups. The really nice thing about the lowest order bits business though, is we have an exact mathematical relationship between this and dynamic range- so we can generate exact testable hypotheses. I'm sure though we could be a little bit clever, and come up with some other exact testable hypotheses. |
Oh, I understand. My criticism still stands, however. Reduction is dynamic range is really not an analogous degradation in sound quality that people expect from amp/cable/dac differences, so it really shouldnt be used. But I understand what you're trying to do - you're trying to test your listeners with varying levels of arbitrary signal degradations to detect their threshold ability to differentiate between small differences in sound. Good luck with that.
Quote:
| For the same reason people buy Ferraris and Porsches when Ford and and Chevy will do. A Ford or a Chevy will get you to the store to buy groceries, drop off your children at school, allow you to go and visit your parents, as well as the Ferrari or a Porsche would. Practically speaking, the speed of the Ferrari and Porsche is lost on most of the population most of the time. But some people really appreciate the subtle differences and improvements. |
That is a terribly non-parallel example! "Subtle" improvements between a Ford and a Ferrari? Are you for real? A Ford and a Ferrari have completely different acceleration times, stopping distances, skidpad g's, lanechange speeds etc. - i.e. the MEASUREMENTS of PERFORMANCE are completely night and day. On the other hand, amps/dac/cables have very little differences in their measurements of performance (frequency response, distortion, etc.). This is why your example is completely non-applicable. Did you think it through at all?
Quote:
| You're asking a question which may be relevant for you- "Why should I spend a lot of money buying equipment which makes very subtly small change to audio performance?", but the answer to that is really only interesting to you. |
You may be right about that. Some people may be willing to spend thousands of dollars on amps/dac's/cables for the potential to make very small, barely audible, improvements in actual sound quality. However, I think people tend to overestimate the magnitude of possible improvement from these upgrades. This is a good article if you haven't read it:
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/To%20Tweak%20or%20Not.pdf
Quote:
| The relationship between cost and performance is extremely asymptotic in most cases. Having to spend 2x as much money to get a 5% improvement in audio might not be worth it to you today, but maybe in 1 year after you've won a superball lotery, it will be (just remember who your friends are then *hint hint*). By a similar fashion, most of the population doesn't understand spending hundreds of dollars on a pair of headphones versus the $10 ones you can get at BestBuy. They're cost/performance function asymptotes much more rapidly than yours- and the exact shape of that curve is going to vary according by individual, and by resource status. |
I'll give you that, sure. However, unless you have $100,000 loudspeakers, or the best electrostatic headphones ever made, then $/% sound improvement (to use your metric), is still greater in upgrading your transducer by a large margin.
Quote:
| But you have definitely cleared up for me what question you are interested in answering. It's just not the same one that I'm interested in. |
The question you are interested in is really only of interest to a very very small segment of the hi-fi world. Sorry, but most people are interested in "value," or the opportunity cost of providing an improvement. Even *IF* you discovered differences in amps/dac's/cables that could be heard by 25% of trained audiophiles after listening for 1 hour (but not less) on certain classical music tracks, and this amp/dac/cable upgrade cost $5000, I can tell you that very very few people would spend that $5000. Some would, I agree.
.gif)
