[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't read the article so I might be grossly misinformed here, but 58% could be HUGELY significant. It just depends on how many trials were conducted.

Listeners were correct in 58% of the identification trials (71 out of 122)


Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif 7m vs. 2m????? Please tell me the cables were level-matched.

No data on this was given, they did report capacitance 712 picofarads (radioshack), 297 picofarads (Boutique cable). Frequency response for the cables was close, not deviating by more than 0.15db above 15K or 0.02db below 2K , however they show no graphs of FR difference vs level or frequency so we cannot see a clear pattern.

For instance when I tested cables I found the largest deviations between cables at the lowest levels AND at frequency extremes (very low and very high) i.e when the levels were -5 to -30 db at the dominant musical frequencies differences were in the 100ths and 1000ths of a db level i.e the cables were near identical, only at -53db and below and at the extremes did differences reach the 0.1db level ...

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed! Quantum mechanics is actually better understood than a fair bit of relativity and hence Einstein receiving his Nobel for QM! My current position as a comp scientist working on quantum computing wouldn't exist if not for the wonderful solidity of QM from theory to practice. Remember folks, scientific theory =! colloquial use or theory!

Kind of off topic, but that is a field I would love to work in (currently pursuing a double major in physics and computer science). Do you do research in quantum computing, or application?

I do concur on the relativity point, we have quite a fair understanding of QM, yet we can't relativistically explain phenomena such as momentum (though if you asked a mathematician he would likely say we understand relativity well, but have zero understanding of QM).

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't read the article so I might be grossly misinformed here, but 58% could be HUGELY significant. It just depends on how many trials were conducted. To give a tangible example, if you flip a fair coin 1000 times, the chance of you landing heads 58% of the time is something ridiculously low, on the order of 0.01% iirc. In fact, the chance of you even landing heads 52-53% of the time in that example is already extremely unlikely

Yes, that deals with statistical significance. However, pragmatic significance is a matter of interpretation. For example, I wouldn't accept a 58% statistically significant result if the test was trying to see if someone could predict the future (say by guessing how many times a coin lands on heads). Sure there's a small chance of him guessing, but I wouldn't be convinced that he's psychic, just that something other than pure chance is at play. In the case of cables, I'd say they might make a small difference, but not one reliable enough to matter in the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif If that's true, then I don't see the point of the article. I do believe that I would hear a difference between a halfway broken $5 instrument cable from guitarcenter and a $10,000 audiophile cable. A more pertinent comparison would be to test high quality cables against each other (i.e. $30 monster cables vs any of the supposed $10,000 cables)

I think this test has some purpose. For one, it lets us know if our tests are wildly inaccurate or not - if a double blind test showed that nobody could tell the difference between a broken instrument cable and an audiophile cable, then that's some evidence that the DBT protocol just sucks for testing. It also lets us define some sort of standard for audibility - if we exaggerate the claim and find a positive result, we have a range to work within. For example, now we can move to a less exaggerated instance, and find where the limit is. Of course in practice nobody does this, they just urge others in the conclusion (much like the author does in the article).

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that deals with statistical significance. However, pragmatic significance is a matter of interpretation. For example, I wouldn't accept a 58% statistically significant result if the test was trying to see if someone could predict the future (say by guessing how many times a coin lands on heads). Sure there's a small chance of him guessing, but I wouldn't be convinced that he's psychic, just that something other than pure chance is at play. In the case of cables, I'd say they might make a small difference, but not one reliable enough to matter in the real world.

if this is true, then it means that you are looking at the test with personal bias (i.e. "I don't believe this is possible")

btw, if a person really could predict a fair coin toss with 58% accuracy (in say, 100000 trials), then I would legitimately believe that he can see the future. of course, this will never happen in real life without a rigged coin (or something similar)

... unless it actually DID happen, then I would believe it :X

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do let me know when you have the cable situation figured out.

SmellyGas has set himself up as the Sound Science Forum Dictator, and determined that only people with certain credentials are entitled to discuss matters on this forum, because it has the word "science" in the title, demonstrating a remarkable level of arrogance and belief in his own intellectual superiority. While it is quite amusing on one level, whenever he intrudes on a thread and starts badgering people with the "you're not a scientist" argument, it's best to just let him have his way and go elsewhere. Several of us have him on our "ignore" list. That helps too (although you can still see when he's quoted).

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif if this is true, then it means that you are looking at the test with personal bias (i.e. "I don't believe this is possible")

No, it doesn't. Statistically significance does not necessarily entail practical significance. A very small difference in SQ could be statistically significant, but if it takes a 6 meter length difference coming out of a cartridge feed to get that small of an improvement then it's safe to say that even if cables make a very small difference the difference they make is very small. This and the fact that people couldn't reliably prefer one over another would indicate that the differences, if they exist, would be very very small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif btw, if a person really could predict a fair coin toss with 58% accuracy (in say, 100000 trials), then I would legitimately believe that he can see the future. of course, this will never happen in real life without a rigged coin (or something similar) ... unless it actually DID happen, then I would believe it :X

Yes but the test only had 122 trials, and if somebody guessed 71/122 coin tosses and claimed to be a psychic, I'd have my reservations. I'll rephrase my original sentence to be "within reasonable trial sizes" but I think that's implied by the post.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe some of the anti cable people could chime in on what cables they would use for these speakers? http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f113/1...8/#post5909573 Monoprice?

If I got those I'd probably buy fancier cables, but only because they'd look nice and compliment the aesthetics of the speakers more. I'd buy those cables for the same reason why I'd buy nice furniture with those speakers as well - not because I think that nice couches make the speakers sound better, but because they look nice and if I'm dropping a mil on speakers I'd have enough money to spend purely on aesthetics.

 

[Dane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I got those I'd probably buy fancier cables, but only because they'd look nice and compliment the aesthetics of the speakers more. I'd buy those cables for the same reason why I'd buy nice furniture with those speakers as well - not because I think that nice couches make the speakers sound better, but because they look nice and if I'm dropping a mil on speakers I'd have enough money to spend purely on aesthetics.

I wouldn't. The cable business attracts certain types of people and I wouldn't be surprised if those people deliberately made the cable worse than ideal in order to make it sound "better" - especially if the cable had small boxes and other woodoo I'd stay the hell away. I simply don't trust them. Besides, I think my homemade cables are very nice. They are made as short as possible and thus hides nicely behind the equipment - boutique cables are usually too long and thick and inflexible and snakes all over the place.

 

[haloxt]

Yes it's true, you have a higher percentage of rapists and murderers in the cable manufacturer population. I read statistics where they are 50 times more likely to kill their own spouses than the general population.

 

[Dane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes it's true, you have a higher percentage of rapists and murderers in the cable manufacturer population. I read statistics where they are 50 times more likely to kill their own spouses than the general population.

 

[DaveHao]

lol

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, it doesn't. Statistically significance does not necessarily entail practical significance. A very small difference in SQ could be statistically significant, but if it takes a 6 meter length difference coming out of a cartridge feed to get that small of an improvement then it's safe to say that even if cables make a very small difference the difference they make is very small. This and the fact that people couldn't reliably prefer one over another would indicate that the differences, if they exist, would be very very small.

AFAIK, nobody is arguing about practical significance. The issue is whether there is a perceivable difference in the first place. statistical significance can give an answer to this second question.

practical significance would be a subjective issue. I'm sure some people consider a small difference (even if barely perceivable) to be worth thousands of dollars.

 

[Happy Camper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't. The cable business attracts certain types of people and I wouldn't be surprised if those people deliberately made the cable worse than ideal in order to make it sound "better" - especially if the cable had small boxes and other woodoo I'd stay the hell away. I simply don't trust them. Besides, I think my homemade cables are very nice. They are made as short as possible and thus hides nicely behind the equipment - boutique cables are usually too long and thick and inflexible and snakes all over the place.

Those snapwaffers.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you would go and drop 50K willy nilly on the first expensive cables (for your million dollar speakers) to come along just so it would look right but you would not invest any thought or research into which expensive cables to buy? Am I getting that right?

No, I'd probably drop a grand on Monster cables. They look cool, and while overpriced, they're UL certified.

As far as research goes, I've done as much research as I personally need to do. You can PM me for more on that if you want to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't. The cable business attracts certain types of people and I wouldn't be surprised if those people deliberately made the cable worse than ideal in order to make it sound "better" - especially if the cable had small boxes and other woodoo I'd stay the hell away. I simply don't trust them. Besides, I think my homemade cables are very nice. They are made as short as possible and thus hides nicely behind the equipment - boutique cables are usually too long and thick and inflexible and snakes all over the place.

Yeah, I'd probably go with something UL certified - beyond that I'd just look for something that looks cool. At the end of the day, however, the question is largely academic.

 

[randomasdf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you would go and drop 50K willy nilly on the first expensive cables (for your million dollar speakers) to come along just so it would look right but you would not invest any thought or research into which expensive cables to buy? Am I getting that right?

If you're willing to spend $1,000,000 on a set of speakers, it's pretty much a drop in the bucket to spend $50,000 on a set of cables to go along with.

And also, I find your comment regarding research terribly ironic. Whenever someone tries to reply to your claims with "science," you disregard them as being too objective and impose this false dichotomy where you cannot approach a topic in a scientific manner but also enjoy it. Is not researching cables scientific?

In the midst of all you "research," though, you fail to research the science behind it and only read the subjective claims of people who have 'experienced' it. You readily deny any and all evidence that seems to oppose your beliefs and heartily accept those which agree with you. The placebo effect and peer persuasion are powerful things.