[Skoobs]

ahahahaha 
 
Quote:

Dude, good luck with this. We've all been down this path with him. He's just too stubborn, and won't admit that the tests don't jive with what he believes, so therefore it must be the tests fault. 
 

 

[beeman458]

Skoobs wrote:
 
ahahahaha
 
Well, I'm glad we finally got that settled.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Beeman reached his conclusion that blind tests are designed to fail before he knew about the blind tests that are passed for the likes of amps and codecs. So now he is stuck in a rut, unable to advance with the new information that does not support his initial argument.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Beeman reached his conclusion that blind tests are designed to fail before he knew about the blind tests that are passed for the likes of amps and codecs. So now he is stuck in a rut, unable to advance with the new information that does not support his initial argument.

Or so you like to think.  

 
Anyway, am I the only one having to switch to source to add a paragraph break so that I don't have to reply within quoted material.  There are a lot of bugs, bells and whistles with this new forum.  Teething pains, I guess.

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

I already know I'll fail.  Why?  Because the tests, for many past stated reasons, are flawed and are designed to assure fail.  Maybe you've been fooled by the validity of audio DBT's, but I haven't. 

Several people have cited positive DBTs here, PRM has a whole thread devoted to it. I have done positive DBTs on CD players, digital transports, filters and codecs there have been positive DBTs on amps, cd players, codecs, speakers, filters, distortion, video cables (using cable length) there has even been a positive DBT on analog cables (albeit a rather extreme 1M vs 6M on unamped unriaa'ed magnetic cartridge output) , there are plenty of positive DBTs out there, there have been positive DBTs on jitter, on sample rates (44.1k vs 88.2k) and even (sometimes, though rarely)  on DVD-A vs SACD. If you did a little bit of research you would find a substantial number of positive DBTs, there  have been positive DBTs on 320Kbps vs lossless and so on, the differencess between stimuli detectable by DBT can be as low as 0.25db or even 0.1db in some cases.
 
There have been case studies where long term listeners have been unable to detect 2.5% distortion in black boxes which DBT listeners get right consistently.
 
Where the difference is bigger than  the human threshold for detection it is detected, where it is smaller it is not, this is a matter of empirical science, there have been positive DBTs on altering the placement of a tweeter relative to a woofer by 2.5mm which introduces the tiniest of timing alterations ( 6 milliseconds) and small level differences (0.2db)  .
 
Again and again we can find examples of positive DBTs - yet you insist that if you tried a DBT with your cables you would fail because they (DBT) are fundamentally flawed. We have over 100 years of psychophysics research that have defined and continue to refine what we know to be the limits of human sensory perception, all of this possible with techniques such as DBT, if DBTs were so flawed these thresholds could never have been established as everyone would always fail them !

You can even do positive DBTs yourself, take a wav file make a copy and add a low pass filter say at 3K to one copy I guarantee you will detect this (if you have normal hearing), then you can move the filter upwards, eventually you will get to a point where you cannot tell the difference, depending on your hearing this could be anywhere from 9K to 20K. There are sites such as Arny Kruger's and Ethan Winer's where you can download different samples to test your ability to detect differences in stimuli.
 
There is nothing magical or deceptive about DBTs it is all about the relationships between thresholds of detection and the differences in stimuli.
 

 

[beeman458]

Or so you like to think.  

 
They like to think this as it serves their purposes as this argument was going on in the 90's and hasn't changed one iota over the last twenty years.  In the meantime, the joke's on them.  Why?  Cause I'm enjoying my cables far more than they are and that's a fact not even they can argue.
 

 
nick_charles wrote:
 
If you did a little bit of research you would find a substantial number of positive DBTs,
 
I appreciate the thought, but I was writing about headphone cables as the title of the thread announces.  In my comments, I'm not trying to address the whole spectrum surrounding DBT's although in the case of audio, my comments do go the full spectrum of the genre.
 
???
 
the differencess between stimuli detectable by DBT can be as low as 0.25db or even 0.1db in some cases.
 
FWIW, it seems that i'm only good down to a 1/2dB as I get sketchy at a 1/4dB.  But none of which has to do with what I'm hearing.  I'm sure anybody would be able to hear what I'm hearing if the change was pointed out to them so they knew what to listen for.  Most folks don't have a clue what to listen for so it goes right past them, which is fine.  It's not about "Golden Ears" as my ears are made of lead.  What it's about is one's awareness of what they're listening for and whether these nuances matter to the listener; skill building.  If these differences don't matter, no amount of coaching will aid them, just like any pursuit, it has to have an interest for you.
 
Again and again we can find examples of positive DBTs - yet you insist that if you tried a DBT with your cables you would fail because they (DBT) are fundamentally flawed.
 
And they are, so what's the point.
 
"Here, we want you to take a fundamentally flawed test so we can use the test results to characterize your behavior."
 
Oh, heck yeah.  I want a boatload of that junk science.
 
"Alex, can I have "Hell no!" for a thousand please?"
 
There are sites such as Arny Kruger's and Ethan Winer's where you can download different samples to test your ability to detect differences in stimuli.
 
FWIW, I went to one of those sites and it proved I couldn't anything and was totally deaf.  Must of been a driver issue but for a second, I thought I had a legitimate excuse for not hearing the phone.
 
There is nothing magical or deceptive about DBTs it is all about the relationships between thresholds of detection and the differences in stimuli.
 
I'm not even going touch the incompleteness of your above.
 

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

Patrick wrote:
 
I hope beeman458 has a lot of disposable income...
 
That's very kind of you.  And I hope you have a lot of disposable income also.
 
Patrick, you forget that auto-suggestion is a two-way street.  Not only have I not been usurped by auto-suggestion, but it's clear that you have.
 
I'll be happy to let you prove that you haven't.  Irrespective, you're more then welcome to keep the dream alive.
 
As to your continued efforts regarding my taking a DBT, there's no point as I've stated many times before, I already know I'll fail.  Why?  Because the tests, for many past stated reasons, are flawed and are designed to assure fail.  Maybe you've been fooled by the validity of audio DBT's, but I haven't.  I'm truly sorry that you've been lured by faulty reasoning but be happy, my money is safe as I have no need to buy any more cables as I have a boatload of them.  The good news, quality cables, unless broken, never get old.
 

 
(I do need to buy a cheap set to get me over as I just received a new (used) DAC and need some RCA connects and my high end connects are at the retirement home.)

 
First it is important that I state that I know very well I am subject to auto-suggestion like everybody else. I know this very well indeed!
 
Properly conducted blind ABX tests work very well indeed.
 
The key to double blind tests is that the triggers for auto-suggestion are removed. The double blind tests will successfully reveal if there has been a perceivable alteration in sound quality.

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

Cables are sickeningly expensive for no good reason... We sell a $400 cable at work and do you know what it costs me? $40 - $50 and I'm quite sure there's still good mark up there.

 
The actual claims for the "hi end" cables are unquantified of course, but we can quantify how much they cost to make and I have yet to see one that was not laughably overpriced.

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

DBTs are designed to fail? how do they fix a DBT? neither the listener or the guy doing the test could, or it wouldnt be DB. now THAT is voodoo.
 
on that note, i would bet money that i could tell the diff between some stock cables and a moderately priced cable if i were to take place in a DBT.
 
but now we are on to arguting bigger, better things. like whether a DBT between a cable that costs a grand would yield results when stacked up against a cable that costs a couple hundred. in my opinion the result wold be that there would be no difference. If there is a difference, then it would be exactly that. the sound would be different. not necessarily better. the listener might actually like the sound of the cheaper cable better.
 
build quality, like was said already, does come in to play though.

 
Properly conducted blind ABX tests are not "fixed".
 
All that happens in the blind ABX tests is that the triggers for auto-suggestion are removed and so the listener is able to find out if there are perceptible differences between A and B.
 
I am glad that you believe that you can tell the difference between the moderately priced cables and stock ones in a DBT, and I must say that this might well be the case, I don't know the answer to that one, we would have to take the test.
 
I do always buy moderately priced cables myself. Fairly recently I replaced nearly all the cables in my system because the old ones, many twenty years old, had been losing ground connection for some time, the RCA collars on the plugs had become loose. I could have just soldered on new plugs but I've been so busy recently that I just can't add anything to what I'm doing.
 
The cables I bought were 1 metre QED Ref Audio and these cost £58.50 ($92.45) including taxes. So, these are not cheap items.

 

[Albedo]

I like my money to go where it matters, science not looks.. so buying a Shakti stone for $230 is madness, though it certainly looks more impressive (auto-suggestion) than a cloth of Stillpoints ERS for $25. In the long run every piece of audio eye-candy fashion losses it's appeal, not being the laughing stock amongst pals, what to do? (this happens after a while, one's view tends to shift).
 
Buy something new impressive oozing of exclusiveness FOTM product (auto-suggestion again) and roll your eyes to the friends that certainly are party poopers, so that they are left outside the good feeling of music and once again in the warmth of your empathy begins to see your point of view...
 
..and strengthening your conviction of being an audio-aristocrat well-versed in metallurgy.

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

Most folks don't have a clue what to listen for so it goes right past them, which is fine.  It's not about "Golden Ears" as my ears are made of lead.  What it's about is one's awareness of what they're listening for and whether these nuances matter to the listener; skill building.  If these differences don't matter, no amount of coaching will aid them, just like any pursuit, it has to have an interest for you.I 

 
I think this quote is interesting and reveals this common error people fairly new to listening to audio make.
 
This "searching out" for specified differences, which beeman458 calls "skill building" is completely the wrong way to go about assessing if there is a difference between one equipment state and another.
 
It is the classic error made by the "golden ears" who believe they can hear things that others cannot.
 
If you go searching for specified differences in sound after adding, say, a different cable, then you will indeed "find" them. In fact what you are doing with this "looking" is just honing auto-suggestion.
 
This development of auto-suggestion which beeman458 mistakes for "skill building" is totally bogus. If the triggers for auto-suggestion are removed in properly conducted ABX listening tests then this "ability" to hear these particular auto-suggested differences will disappear.

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

The good news, quality cables, unless broken, never get old.
 

 
I can tell you, from experience, that the auto-suggestion wears off over time.
 
After a couple of years you forget which of your cables was the one that "increased the size of the soundstage". You forget which one "firmed up the bass".
 
Having simply forgotten what the effects of the cables were supposed to be, they will all just sound pretty much the, er, same

 

[beeman458]

Patrick wrote:
 
Properly conducted blind ABX tests work very well indeed.
 
Not when the standards are applied to audio listening tests of this kind.
 
The key to double blind tests is that the triggers for auto-suggestion are removed. The double blind tests will successfully reveal if there has been a perceivable alteration in sound quality.
 
No they're not as first most audio DBT's are designed around a bias view point.  Second they don't take into consideration the single most important point regarding human's audio sensory system being analogue as opposed to the digital standard of accuracy that's applied.
 
This "searching out" for specified differences, which beeman458 calls "skill building" is completely the wrong way to go about assessing if there is a difference between one equipment state and another.
 
No it's not, but hey, ya had ta try.
 
It is the classic error made by the "golden ears" who believe they can hear things that others cannot.
 
You keep using the pejorative "golden ears" but I'm the first one to write and have written many times that I have lead ears as yes, one can learn how to hear what I hear.
 
If you go searching for specified differences in sound after adding, say, a different cable, then you will indeed "find" them. In fact what you are doing with this "looking" is just honing auto-suggestion.
 
I'm not one of those who uses cables to tune their system.  A decent quality cable opens up the signal and that's all I'm wanting out of the deal, better sound quality.  I can see from your comments, with all due respect, you're clueless because your above was a dart throw and you missed.  If I want to tune a system, I use the volume control and an EQ.
 
This development of auto-suggestion which beeman458 mistakes for "skill building" is totally bogus. If the triggers for auto-suggestion are removed in properly conducted ABX listening tests then this "ability" to hear these particular auto-suggested differences will disappear.
 
You're back to guessing in your above as there's no auto-suggestion, yes it's skill building and no, it's not the least bit bogus, but if it keeps you warm at night, have at it.
 
I can tell you, from experience, that the auto-suggestion wears off over time.
 
After a couple of years you forget which of your cables was the one that "increased the size of the soundstage". You forget which one "firmed up the bass".
 
Having simply forgotten what the effects of the cables were supposed to be, they will all just sound pretty much the, er, same

 
You missed again.  Why?  I don't get out of cables what you're writing in your above.  You keep making convenient assumptions (we all do) and you keep missing the mark, which we all do also.  What I experience deals with issues of system clipping (harsh highs), closed up piano chords and compressed signals.  Above that, you'll have to write to somebody else because I'm not getting any of the experiences that you write about out of the deal.  What you also seem to not be getting, cables are only a small part of the larger picture and you anti-cable guys have such a microscope on the cable issues that you'd think cables make up over fifty percent of the system when it's more like a five percent or less thingy.
 
Just a thought, it's a free choice if one wants to move science forward or keep it living in the past as science is intended to challenge itself, not wallow in old school ideas which are no longer valid or applicable.
 

 

[eucariote]

 
Quote:

 
If you did a little bit of research you would find a substantial number of positive DBTs,
 
I appreciate the thought, but I was writing about headphone cables as the title of the thread announces.  In my comments, I'm not trying to address the whole spectrum surrounding DBT's although in the case of audio, my comments do go the full spectrum of the genre.
 

 
Here's a small sample of peer-reviewed journals that routinely publish DBTs using auditory tests.  And typically only the positive ones get published. 
 
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/collection/audition
http://informahealthcare.com/loi/ija
 
Nothing special about audition.  All sensory inputs are coded by spike trains of transducing neurons and at the level of the cortex (where sensory experience is created) the tissue is surprisingly similar in structure and function.  One experiment even switched inputs to visual and auditory cortex in an animal embryo and both senses developed.

 

[beeman458]

eucariote wrote:
 
Here's a small sample of peer-reviewed journals that routinely publish DBTs using auditory tests.  And typically only the positive ones get published.
 
And I'm sure you screened all of the articles for their applicability to the thread's subject matter?
 
???
 
If it helps, my use the word genre, applies to the subject matter at hand; audio cables.