As soon as you start looking at sequences and deciding if they're "random" enough, you lose the randomness. Your fellow Carolinian, J.B. Rhine, was guilty of that...
Maybe he can, maybe he can't. But that's not the question ("Can this be heard in any environment?"). The question is, "Can this be heard in the environment claimed?" If you want to complicate things, use a variety of systems and a variety of listeners to nail down twenty different variables. That could eat up a year and a million bucks. I wouldn't suggest it.
This test is very, very simple. So simple and obvious that it's best avoided by those who lack sincerity in their belief.
Maybe he can, maybe he can't. But that's not the question ("Can this be heard in any environment?"). The question is, "Can this be heard in the environment claimed?" If you want to complicate things, use a variety of systems and a variety of listeners to nail down twenty different variables. That could eat up a year and a million bucks. I wouldn't suggest it.
This test is very, very simple. So simple and obvious that it's best avoided by those who lack sincerity in their belief.
Compared to the speaker the cable variations are completely irrelevant.
I sometimes cant tell crossover distortion so I am never going to hear a tiny change due to a speaker cable.
Most of this is not necessary. The claimant should use any gear he likes, and any cable he likes. The one and only variable should be the cable. The idea of having a curtain is fine, if the cables aren't identical. If there were no curtain, and the claimant was able to see the switcher, the switcher must not know which cable is which either (hence 'double blind'). At least 8-10 correct answers in a row are necessary to get reasonably beyond the chances of guessing correctly.
These techniques are well established and work just fine. There are too many variables and unforeseen discrepancies in the method currently being 'developed' here to be taken seriously. This test you all are making up will not be regarded as 'real' anywhere but here. - Even if it does produce a completely accurate result.
Do it right, or why bother.
The correct methods are discussed :
HERE.
HERE and
HERE
If you dont believe me then download a speaker data file and look at the frequency response. They are fluctuating wildly.
Also the impedance is all over the place too.
To me bragging about better speaker cables is simple hifi snobbery and doesnt impress me in the slightest.
I run a mobile disco using mains cables for speaker cables and have never ever had a single complaint about the sound.
I'm with you. But I and others have already carried that flag ad nauseum.
Also the listening room should be oxygen free.
No doubt the sound would be breath taking.
People, understand this. No matter how this experiment will be done, there will always be some who will find faults. That doesn't mean that we should be careless about it.
The way we've setup the experiment the weakest link is not the technicality of it but the human factor. We, the organizers, have to be honest. Andre cannot cheat even if he wants to, and I'm not implying he does.
I know for a fact that some out there will think the organizers cheated. Human nature. There is no assurance besides our word that any of us can give. Heck, we do it for fun and I hope we can keep it clean.
Oatmeal, look, the structure of the experiment is like those you point to. We don't have the resources to run like that now. Perhaps at one of those shows people will organize it differently, but it will still be doubted.
I know that even if everybody else will not believe the results, us who are involved, knowing we do it honestly, will do. Good use of $10 and a bit of spare time for me.
The way we've setup the experiment the weakest link is not the technicality of it but the human factor. We, the organizers, have to be honest. Andre cannot cheat even if he wants to, and I'm not implying he does.
I know for a fact that some out there will think the organizers cheated. Human nature. There is no assurance besides our word that any of us can give. Heck, we do it for fun and I hope we can keep it clean.
Oatmeal, look, the structure of the experiment is like those you point to. We don't have the resources to run like that now. Perhaps at one of those shows people will organize it differently, but it will still be doubted.
I know that even if everybody else will not believe the results, us who are involved, knowing we do it honestly, will do. Good use of $10 and a bit of spare time for me.
There is ONE way in which Andre could cheat. But he'd need help.
If someone sends him the random key before he reports his results.
We have to be sure that does not happen.
Otherwise it a very simple and easy test. No need for Andre to be blindfolded in the least. Without the key, there is only one way he can know which is which. By listening to them.
If someone sends him the random key before he reports his results.
We have to be sure that does not happen.
Otherwise it a very simple and easy test. No need for Andre to be blindfolded in the least. Without the key, there is only one way he can know which is which. By listening to them.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.