[haloxt]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are underestimating how side effects of pills may contribute to placebo. Even if you tested a billion test subjects, the side effects (or main effects) of a pill and how it may affect placebo must be considered. For example, something drastic happens when I take a pill, like it makes my two big toes swollen. I consciously think, Oh my, the pill must be working and I feel relieved with all the subsequent placebo effects. Some people might not experience it, others might experience the opposite and panic and result in nocebo. All this has to be accounted for while interpreting data regardless of the number of test subjects.

If what I said above is true, the bearing it has on cable testing is that cable testing should be pretty darn simple to do and interpret, and hopefully we see less of pro-cablers saying dbt is not an ideal test method.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are underestimating how side effects of pills may contribute to placebo. Even if you tested a billion test subjects, the side effects (or main effects) of a pill and how it may affect placebo must be considered. For example, something drastic happens when I take a pill, like it makes my two big toes swollen. I consciously think, Oh my, the pill must be working and I feel relieved with all the subsequent placebo effects. Some people might not experience it, others might experience the opposite and panic and result in nocebo. All this has to be accounted for while interpreting data regardless of the number of test subjects. If what I said above is true, the bearing it has on cable testing is that cable testing should be pretty darn simple to do and interpret, and hopefully we see less of pro-cablers saying dbt is not an ideal test method.

In a word yes, I think you're wrong.

Remember that when you're testing pills you're assessing for a specific outcome. You don't run a study comparing pills and just checking for effects in general. The pill is typically designed to do something in particular. You don't give the pill and just observe for any and every possible response to it. For instance, the pill may be designed to lower blood pressure. Your single outcome when testing that particular pill is the blood pressure response.

In the case of cables, you're looking for a specific outcome, i.e., a statistically significant perceived change in sound.

 

[haloxt]

The type of medical experiments I'm talking about are always going to have placebo contributing to the margin of error. No such thing happens when you have a person press a button that randomly picks between cable 1 and cable 2 and he has to guess which one is being used. How can placebo occur when he has no extrinsic or intrinsic placebo cues? If he notices a cue from one of the two cables, it means he can discern an audible difference. Assuming that, then it's only a matter of trying to get something statistically significant out of him with repetitive tests, and the only thing holding him back would be how often he gets faulty hearing and brain farts, not placebo.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif The type of medical experiments I'm talking about are always going to have placebo contributing to the margin of error. No such thing happens when you have a person press a button that randomly picks between cable 1 and cable 2 and he has to guess which one is being used. How can placebo occur when he has no extrinsic or intrinsic placebo cues? If he notices a cue from one of the two cables, it means he can discern an audible difference. Assuming that, then it's only a matter of trying to get something statistically significant out of him with repetitive tests, and the only thing holding him back would be how often he gets faulty hearing and brain farts, not placebo.

...if you insist.

 

[haloxt]

I'll stop harassing you with this topic after this post

sorry, I am just having too much fun with analogies. If a medical test was like a proper cable DBT, it'd be like a liquid that when consumed, scientists hope (but aren't certain) will make your left pinky fingernail itch for a split second after consumption. They are allowed to try both the test liquid and placebo liquid as much as they want, and then get a randomized liquid whenever they want to submit a guess. 999 of the 1000 testers fare no better than probability, either by not consciously reporting that their left pinky fingernail itched, OR reporting left pinky fingernail itching 50% when given the placebo liquid and 50% when given the real liquid. But 1 of those 1,000 persons reports left pinky fingernail itching at a possibly statistically significant ratio, you should continue testing him because he has the highest probability of proving whether a liquid can make the itch.

If the liquid really does make you itch, there's a chance you think you feel the itch whenever you consume either of the two liquids. This is analogous to accurately perceiving something different in cable 1 and then falsely attributing that characteristic to cable 2 when you chose to hear a randomized cable and got cable 2 and wrongly called it cable 1. But this peculiar form of placebo has nothing in common with most medical placebo or the placebo that goes on in non-DBT cable tests, it makes more sense to consider it as a part of the question of whether humans can be consciously aware of cable differences, which may be as minute as a liquid that induces a split second of itching.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll stop harassing you with this topic after this post sorry, I am just having too much fun with analogies.

A time comes when simply talking about it isn't enough. You need experience. Once you have that then all the questions and hangups are cleared up. I don't see myself clearing up your concerns through a discussion as this.

The similarities between the two issues are quite strong.

 

[Uncle Erik]

haloxt, lots of similar tests have already been done with cables. It was a few years back, but our very own Edwood made up three test cables that were circulated among volunteers. No one knew what the cables were made of and they got a chanceto listen as long as they wanted to each, then passing them along.

There's a lengthy discussion of the results, but in short, no one could tell what they were listening to. A few correct answers, but everything ended up statistically insignificant.

Exactly like how every other cable test turns out.

 

[9pintube]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif haloxt, lots of similar tests have already been done with cables. It was a few years back, but our very own Edwood made up three test cables that were circulated among volunteers. No one knew what the cables were made of and they got a chanceto listen as long as they wanted to each, then passing them along. There's a lengthy discussion of the results, but in short, no one could tell what they were listening to. A few correct answers, but everything ended up statistically insignificant. Exactly like how every other cable test turns out.

Uncle Erik, Right again.... I've been placeeeeeboooed with a group of audiophiles and If the "Difference Test" wasn't given to others in our friendly group, who 4 out of the 6 "guessed" wrong I would have felt pretty foolish....for I too WAS a believer in high $$$$$ wire, funny how you finally have to say "You got to be sh-itin' me"

 

[haloxt]

It could mean that it's just really hard to hear a difference in cables. It would be easier on the test subject if it was as easy as clicking a button such as when ABXing 320kbps vs lossless, and consider how difficult that is to prove even when so convenient and with so many tests done even though there is an audible difference. It is not far-fetched to say that to test the conscious discernment of cable differences deserves more effort.

When someone makes a switch that simultaneously switches the power cable, interconnect, and speaker cable, and an honest test is done between stock and aftermarket cables with many test subjects and also many weeks of testing and a big variety of test equipment is used (especially those considered sensitive to cables), I'll admit the issue has been properly addressed.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

There's a lengthy discussion of the results, but in short, no one could tell what they were listening to. A few correct answers, but everything ended up statistically insignificant.

If I've understood this, each person had exactly one guess at what the cable was? If that's the case, you can't say that "no one could tell what they were listening to", only that "the group couldn't tell what they were listening to".

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif In a word yes, I think you're wrong. Remember that when you're testing pills you're assessing for a specific outcome. You don't run a study comparing pills and just checking for effects in general. The pill is typically designed to do something in particular. You don't give the pill and just observe for any and every possible response to it. For instance, the pill may be designed to lower blood pressure. Your single outcome when testing that particular pill is the blood pressure response. In the case of cables, you're looking for a specific outcome, i.e., a statistically significant perceived change in sound.

Read Thread 1.

"What does the new study say?

The researchers found that placebos can have very real and positive effects on people's symptoms. For example, studies show that placebos given for pain relief can activate painkilling chemicals in the body, and placebos used for depression can produce changes in brain activity"

So you can will your system to sound better in your mind.

You cannot have placebo effect in a proper ABX test, by definition.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Read Thread 1. "What does the new study say? The researchers found that placebos can have very real and positive effects on people's symptoms. For example, studies show that placebos given for pain relief can activate painkilling chemicals in the body, and placebos used for depression can produce changes in brain activity" So you can will your system to sound better in your mind. You cannot have placebo effect in a proper ABX test, by definition.

In the ABX test, do all listeners claim that they don't hear a difference? Aren't there listeners who claim they do hear a difference and when their claims are tallied, they are wrong as often as they're right? Why are they claiming a difference when there really wasn't?

I think you're forgetting that sound perception and how it affects the brain is pretty much similar to any other form of perception, whether it be pain or just a feeling of well-being. A certain mysticism is being applied to ones perceived effect of a particular medication as opposed to none being applied to ones perceived effect of a cable change. Suddenly the placebo effect seems to be more applicable and somehow more difficult to negate through experimentation.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the ABX test, do all listeners claim that they don't hear a difference? Aren't there listeners who claim they do hear a difference and when their claims are tallied, they are wrong as often as they're right? Why are they claiming a difference when there really wasn't?

Yes, I am not arguing this.

I was just stating that if the ABX listening test is designed correctly then placebo should no impact on the final result of the test.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I am not arguing this. I was just stating that if the ABX listening test is designed correctly then placebo should no impact on the final result of the test.

Oh, sure. It's the same for the tests with the pills. Properly designed, though there's placebo effect occurring, the final result of the test shouldn't be affected by it.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the ABX test, do all listeners claim that they don't hear a difference? Aren't there listeners who claim they do hear a difference and when their claims are tallied, they are wrong as often as they're right? Why are they claiming a difference when there really wasn't?

you'll hear different things when listening to the same music twice on exactly the same system