[magicscreen]

Blind testing a flawed method. Your ear+brain is fallible. And you are using these fallible devices to prove something?

 

[bfreedma]

Blind testing a flawed method. Your ear+brain is fallible. And you are using these fallible devices to prove something?

Blind testing is necessary BECAUSE our ear+brain susceptible to placebo. What specific issues do you have with a properly setup DBT used to determine if the subject can determine if they perceive a difference between two samples?

If you have a better testing protocol that eliminates bias, please post it.

 

[bigshot]

How would you test whether a difference is perceptible or not without perception? The point of blind testing is to make perception less fallible.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Double-deaf testing is proven to eliminate most but not all differences in audio

 

[castleofargh]

If you decide to feed the troll, please do it in moderation and make sure it's organic food.

 

[old tech]

Blind testing a flawed method. Your ear+brain is fallible. And you are using these fallible devices to prove something?

Not sure if this was meant as humour as the ear + brain fallibility is precisely why controlled double blind testing is the gold standard.

 

[HiFiHawaii808]

Anyone who needs a double blind test to determine that cables make a difference to sound quality has probably actually never conducted a test of various cables themselves. They think that everyone who buys into cables making a difference is just delusional. It's why they insist upon double blind tests because they can't actually fathom it being true. Rather than deny it, just try it. Then, you will see how silly your objections actually are. Before I actually tested a bunch of cables, I was very skeptical. Now I actually own several high quality cables because they make that much difference. I've found that cables make as much or more difference to sound quality for IEMs as tips do. It's a dramatic difference. Just take a high quality copper cable and test it against a high quality silver cable. If you do, you may have a hard time figuring out which IEM was yours in a blind test with multiple IEMs since the sound signature is so dramatically altered by the cable.

 

[bigshot]

It's a given that if you use the wrong kind of cable for the purpose, it may very likely degrade the sound. But if you compare an inexpensive and expensive cable of the same basic design, you won't be able to discern a difference.

But your bias will prevent you from knowing for sure if you refuse to do a controlled test. And based on your biased conclusions, I am quite sure you've never done one. If you would like to try, there are people here who can help you set up a fair listening test. I guarantee you that you will be surprised.

 

[sander99]

Anyone who needs a double blind test to determine that cables make a difference to sound quality has probably actually never conducted a test of various cables themselves.

Anyone who thinks he can determine that cables make a difference to sound quality - in cases where this is not to be expected, so not cases where a totally wrong-for-the-job cable is compared to a suitable-for-the-job cable - without conducting a well controlled level matched double blind ABX test clearly does not understand the first thing about human sound perception, in particular does not understand that the influence of expectation bias and many, many other non pure sound related factors can make anyone hear even night and day differences even where there is no audible difference at all! This last statement is true regardless of whether or not there are audible differences in cables, it is a logical implication of the well established fact how human hearing perception depends on many things besides actual sound itself.

Roughly three types of cases can be distinguished:
1. Cases in which theory, measurements and calculation tell us the differences are clearly far below the general accepted tresholds of audibility. In these cases we don't need a listening test to conclude that there is no audible difference for anyone.
2.Cases in which theory, measurements and calculation tell us the differences are clearly far above the general accepted tresholds of audibility. In these cases we don't need a listening test to conclude that there is an audible difference.
3. Cases in which theory, measurements and calculation tell us the differences are close to the general accepted tresholds of audibility. In these cases - if applicable - the only way to prove that there is an audible difference of course is by conducting a well controlled level matched double blind ABX test with a suitable outcome.

 

[old tech]

Anyone who needs a double blind test to determine that cables make a difference to sound quality has probably actually never conducted a test of various cables themselves. They think that everyone who buys into cables making a difference is just delusional. It's why they insist upon double blind tests because they can't actually fathom it being true. Rather than deny it, just try it. Then, you will see how silly your objections actually are. Before I actually tested a bunch of cables, I was very skeptical. Now I actually own several high quality cables because they make that much difference. I've found that cables make as much or more difference to sound quality for IEMs as tips do. It's a dramatic difference. Just take a high quality copper cable and test it against a high quality silver cable. If you do, you may have a hard time figuring out which IEM was yours in a blind test with multiple IEMs since the sound signature is so dramatically altered by the cable.

Here you go again, after you totally ignored the question posed to you earlier. If you are so confident that you can tell a difference in a controlled blind test then why are you not trying to claim the $1 million prize from the Randi Institute? Only a very irrational person would not try and claim a cool $1 million if they were so sure of themselves (not to mention becoming famous in the audio community as the first person to do so). It's a bit like having a $1 million win in a lottery and then not claiming on the ticket.

There is no point in retreating and pausing your posts for a while rather than answering the simple question and then repeating the same nonsense over and over again, it is not a good look.

Btw, was it you or the other believer that posted that April fools day article as scientific proof a few weeks ago?

 

[Roland P]

How bad must a cable be to notice obvious differences?

 

[bigshot]

How bad must a cable be to notice obvious differences?

Either unsuitable for the purpose or defective.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Here you go again, after you totally ignored the question posed to you earlier. If you are so confident that you can tell a difference in a controlled blind test then why are you not trying to claim the $1 million prize from the Randi Institute? Only a very irrational person would not try and claim a cool $1 million if they were so sure of themselves (not to mention becoming famous in the audio community as the first person to do so). It's a bit like having a $1 million win in a lottery and then not claiming on the ticket.

There is no point in retreating and pausing your posts for a while rather than answering the simple question and then repeating the same nonsense over and over again, it is not a good look.

It's also not a good look to repeat the Randi $1 million nonsense over and over again. I understand what you're trying to do, but there are better ways to do it.

- The $1 million challenge ended in 2015 when James Randi retired from JREF (James Randi Education Foundation - I think)
- For the final several years (7...8...?), they wouldn't accept just anyone off the street. You had to be associated with an organization.
- JREF's three (IIRC) encounters of the audio kind are mixed. One good, one bad, one dodgy.

Why not just say: "If you can demonstrate what you claim, you'd be a hero to subjectivists, and make most objectivists look silly." Just tell him he's not convincing, and don't try to shame him into submission. Won't work, in most cases.

 

[Roland P]

Either unsuitable for the purpose or defective.

It's a given that if you use the wrong kind of cable for the purpose, it may very likely degrade the sound

I still wonder what kind of cable that is.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I still wonder what kind of cable that is.

Unsuitable: filamentous earbud cable for speakers, lamp cord between turntable and phono preamp, ribbon cable for 5m ethernet cable...
Defective: cheap manufactured cable with broken connection, dog-chewed wire, a cable my wife uses (she's destroyed about 10 Lightning cables)...