[Riccioli30]

I don't understand neither the sentence nor the image, is it a joke? why before the test?

I repeat: I would be cautious in sharing the results of the Christmas tests on this subforum. Better in other sections. But I will read them with pleasure and attention, even if they are vague and doubtful to avoid trouble. And, with even more attention if - respected all possible and even impossible conditions for a test that is as objective as possible - the result will be that : “there is no audible difference”.

 

[bigshot]

If he repeats the test with all the flaws it had the first time, it probably will produce flawed results again. If he makes an effort to get better at his testing procedures, it might produce accurate results.

 

[gregorio]

I repeat: I would be cautious in sharing the results of the Christmas tests on this subforum. Better in other sections.

Sorry, but this is very poor advice! It’s actually against Head-Fi TOS to mention/discuss blind tests in any other section of Head-Fi except this subforum. If the test is poorly conducted and the results therefore end-up aligning with audiophile marketing, there’s a higher chance he’ll get away with it but still it’s against the TOS. I presume you’re not deliberately encouraging him to break the TOS?

G

 

[Riccioli30]

Sorry, but this is very poor advice! It’s actually against Head-Fi TOS to mention/discuss blind tests in any other section of Head-Fi except this subforum. If the test is poorly conducted and the results therefore end-up aligning with audiophile marketing, there’s a higher chance he’ll get away with it but still it’s against the TOS. I presume you’re not deliberately encouraging him to break the TOS?

G

Of course not. Far be it from me to think this. It is just a stimulus to a greater discussion that is not reduced to concluding that 1) if differences are felt, it is because the procedure was not respected in some step, AND: who could? There are many variables: it's easy to say 2) if you don't hear any differences, the procedure has still been respected: as we wanted to demonstrate.

 

[bigshot]

If your conclusions go against a century of research done by real scientists, you either 1) work to figure out where you made your mistake, or 2) find a knowledgeable scientist who can see if they can replicate your results so you can become famous for proving a fundamental principle that all electrical engineering is based on is wrong. There’s nothing inbetween those two.

I think it’s pretty obvious which one it is though. We’ve got an admission that the controls were loosely applied, and there’s clearly bias on the part of the person conducting the test.

 

[KinGensai]

If your conclusions go against a century of research done by real scientists, you either 1) work to figure out where you made your mistake, or 2) find a knowledgeable scientist who can see if they can replicate your results so you can become famous for proving a fundamental principle that all electrical engineering is based on is wrong. There’s nothing inbetween those two.

I think it’s pretty obvious which one it is though. We’ve got an admission that the controls were loosely applied, and there’s clearly bias on the part of the person conducting the test.

Somehow, that concept is really hilarious. I picture a guy trying to yell at the entirety of the information age about how one of it's core premises is fatally wrong while using the fruits of said information age to deliver it.

 

[Riccioli30]

If your conclusions go against a century of research done by real scientists, you either 1) work to figure out where you made your mistake, or 2) find a knowledgeable scientist who can see if they can replicate your results so you can become famous for proving a fundamental principle that all electrical engineering is based on is wrong. There’s nothing inbetween those two.

I think it’s pretty obvious which one it is though. We’ve got an admission that the controls were loosely applied, and there’s clearly bias on the part of the person conducting the test.

This is exactly why I advise against sharing the results of the Christmas test. If you notice a difference, it is because the physical/chemical parameters are different (for sure) but also because the moon is in its waning phase, and there has been an influence with cosmic rays and the birth of a supernova in Andromeda. If the results are no different, it will be because the physical parameters and all the other nice things are - by the law of fractal causality or otherwise - coincident for the objects under test. So what's the point of doing this Christmas test? Everyone will remain ultra convinced of what they feel in agreement with what they think, even if we all respect Ohm's law. It is not in this subforum that you will get different answers. Can not be done. And the discussion should be closed.

 

[KinGensai]

This is exactly why I advise against sharing the results of the Christmas test. If you notice a difference, it is because the physical/chemical parameters are different (for sure) but also because the moon is in its waning phase, and there has been an influence with cosmic rays and the birth of a supernova in Andromeda. If the results are no different, it will be because the physical parameters and all the other nice things are - by the law of fractal causality or otherwise - coincident for the objects under test. So what's the point of doing this Christmas test? Everyone will remain ultra convinced of what they feel in agreement with what they think, even if we all respect Ohm's law. It is not in this subforum that you will get different answers. Can not be done. And the discussion should be closed.

I have to ask... Why are you advocating for an exacerbation of reactance by discouraging discourse? How do you think science is practiced exactly? Experimental science is a skillset, and as with all skillsets, practice makes perfect. I learned how to design and execute studies by doing and making mistakes under supervision by my professors and peers, as I'm sure many others have, so nothing's wrong with tripping up sometimes. Just learn from those mistakes is all anyone who really cares about your growth will ever ask.

 

[castleofargh]

But- there was no advertising here

So you confess to using an ad blocker

 

[Ryokan]

I hope the results are published here, it sounds like great fun and something the whole family can participate in at Christmas. The OP knows now to take extra care in not letting people see which cable is being used. And if someone can pick each cable out 100%, then many of us here will just take it with a pinch of salt and place no great credence in the test.

Fwiw I recently bought three cables, one cost $350 and the other two around $100. I've tried them on different iem's but didn't notice a change in sound between them but wasn't looking for one either, so wasn't paying close attention and know from experience 60secs between changes may as well be an hour.

 

[Dragonmilenario]

If your conclusions go against a century of research done by real scientists, you either 1) work to figure out where you made your mistake, or 2) find a knowledgeable scientist who can see if they can replicate your results so you can become famous for proving a fundamental principle that all electrical engineering is based on is wrong. There’s nothing inbetween those two.

I think it’s pretty obvious which one it is though. We’ve got an admission that the controls were loosely applied, and there’s clearly bias on the part of the person conducting the test.

I will repeat the Christmas test for two reasons:

- The first because it turns out to be something fun and as someone said, it connects 3 generations around a common hobby.

- The second because I don't want to be left in doubt and there is plenty of room to improve the test and make it more rigorous.

As you can read there is no third reason called "to enlighten head-fi users and challenge established scientific criteria", neither is nor will be my intention and I hope nobody takes it this way.

P.S: Since I opened the thread I have been doing some research (not too much) on blind testing of cables and there is something I don't like at all, there is always an intermediate component to be able to quickly change sound samples. To my taste, and with my limited experience, that component completely alters and contaminates the test. You cannot compare the sound of two cables using a splitter or an internal separation system with cables of other material inside. The soldering already worries me, as to add cables of another material, lol.

 

[msing539]

Have you considered adding a third cable to the test? Palladium maybe.

 

[Dragonmilenario]

Have you considered adding a third cable to the test? Palladium maybe.

I think that two cables are enough, even if she hears any difference it must be so small that adding more variables could complicate everything and throw away any results.

 

[Riccioli30]

So you confess to using an ad blocker

AD blocker. Handsome! No, I don't need it. I couldn't advertise anything also because, I repeat, agree that the market is polluted, and that there is a lot of snake oil. And, last but not least, what I like may not please others at all. To each his own experiences.

 

[Riccioli30]

I think that two cables are enough, even if she hears any difference it must be so small that adding more variables could complicate everything and throw away any results.

Three is a perfect number for many, but, in this case, two is enough, indeed if we stop at one, perhaps it is better.