Since it is accepted even here
that good recordings are rare, is it possible to buy such a recording from you? I'm always interested to hear what is possible.
If you're comparing $$$ cables to a 50 foot run of the 24 gauge wire that came bundled with your Llyods 8 Track - yeah, the difference is audible. But I don't hear a difference in generic 10 gauge with good quality connectors and any $$$ cable.
Now, if you lift those cables off the floor with little wooden pucks - wow you're talking.
I also think car audio drivers painted day-glo red with words like "The Terminator" on the dust covers sound better also.
Now, if you lift those cables off the floor with little wooden pucks - wow you're talking.
I also think car audio drivers painted day-glo red with words like "The Terminator" on the dust covers sound better also.
SY,
do you remember that you dismissed Sturms cable blind test due to the non blinded switching person in the control trial?
You never showed that he was able to guide unintentionally/subconsciously over 120 participants in at least 12 runs over 3-5 days to get in the end an nearly balanced result.
The sheer possibility was enough in that cas; are you now really arguing that the sheer possibility is not enough, although based on common engineering knowledge?
If you are testing cables you should at least admit that an audible difference might be possible, without knowing what the reason for the audible difference is. Therefore you should consider that any additional component might have an influence too, without knowing what the reason for the influence might be.
Experimenter bias is as dangerous as any other.
Wishes
do you remember that you dismissed Sturms cable blind test due to the non blinded switching person in the control trial?
You never showed that he was able to guide unintentionally/subconsciously over 120 participants in at least 12 runs over 3-5 days to get in the end an nearly balanced result.
The sheer possibility was enough in that cas; are you now really arguing that the sheer possibility is not enough, although based on common engineering knowledge?
If you are testing cables you should at least admit that an audible difference might be possible, without knowing what the reason for the audible difference is. Therefore you should consider that any additional component might have an influence too, without knowing what the reason for the influence might be.
Experimenter bias is as dangerous as any other.
Wishes
Yes I have contact with Prof.Hawksford. I do not know if he did any new work on cables but he is one of the few university professors i know that admits that passive components have very audible differences. One model example is the Essex Phono Equalizer produced for some time by LFD. I own one and all the wiring, caps, resistors etc. where carefuly chosen by listening. Usually Dr.Bews of LFD does that. Prof.Hawsford told me that Dr.Bews is superb at chosing components by sound. He must be on to something because his LFD Zerro integated amp was described as the best sounding integrated amplifier by Sam Tellig of Stereophile. The scientic fraternity will of cause dismiss this as anecdotal.
Has the good professor ever responded to the critique of his wire articles by other physicists?
bias
So, by your reasoning, it is necessary to consider the power plant supply to the home, the electrical distribution system to the home, state of health of the listener, etc. ad nauseum, in order to consider "any additional component might have an influence too" for the test regime to be valid. Lest you argue that some of these are part of the system, not "additional", why not, for example, replace the AC/DC conversion in the power supply with low noise batteries for pure DC, thus removing one of the issues above?
Indeed, "Experimenter bias is as dangerous as any other". Then there are the practical aspects and limitations of any testing regime, notwithstanding pedantic arguments to the contrary.
John L.
SY,
do you remember that you dismissed Sturms cable blind test due to the non blinded switching person in the control trial?
You never showed that he was able to guide unintentionally/subconsciously over 120 participants in at least 12 runs over 3-5 days to get in the end an nearly balanced result.
The sheer possibility was enough in that cas; are you now really arguing that the sheer possibility is not enough, although based on common engineering knowledge?
If you are testing cables you should at least admit that an audible difference might be possible, without knowing what the reason for the audible difference is. Therefore you should consider that , without knowing what the reason for the influence might be.
Experimenter bias is as dangerous as any other.
Wishes
So, by your reasoning, it is necessary to consider the power plant supply to the home, the electrical distribution system to the home, state of health of the listener, etc. ad nauseum, in order to consider "any additional component might have an influence too" for the test regime to be valid. Lest you argue that some of these are part of the system, not "additional", why not, for example, replace the AC/DC conversion in the power supply with low noise batteries for pure DC, thus removing one of the issues above?
Indeed, "Experimenter bias is as dangerous as any other". Then there are the practical aspects and limitations of any testing regime, notwithstanding pedantic arguments to the contrary.
John L.
Thanks Joachim that would be very interesting to hear. Will send you a PM.
It depends on the objective of any test. As stated before, as the operationalization is seldom described, you can´t know if somebody did think about confounders or not.
In cases where the documentation tells something you quite often notice that experimenters do have concerns about factors that might favor the alternative hypothesis, but don´t think about factors that might favor the null hypothesis. That is just experimenter bias.
So, if you want to test some claims about audibility you have to carefully select the test design to avoid any factor that might influence the result.
You think that is a tedious procedure? Of course, you´re right, but testing was never an easy task (At least if you are interested in valid testing).
Please just look up the requirements for a test; it has to be objective, reliable and valid.
Might be that practicability is not given for a certain task, but the introduction of an additional switch box is simply not mandatory, so it lacks a good argument for the introduction.
That suddenly others should take the burden of proof that this box does not alter something is a bit funny, don´t you think so?
Wishes
We talked about this test in this thread before; i´m sorry but it will take some time to find the posts regarding this issue.
Wishes
In my case? The only experiment I'm running is the tg1954 interconnect swap. What's the "additional gear" you're talking about?
Actually, jneutron had some EMail correspondence with him on the subject. If memory serves, he never addressed jneutron's critique, said he stood by his claims, and then went silent.
se
I figured as much, unless a critique and rebuttal are done in public with peer review there's not much use in pressing the point. Another thing that surprises me, Dr. Hawksford has at his disposal (I assume) a resonably well equiped and funded laboratory and plenty of captive listeners. He is frequently quoted with extraordinary claims and is in a good position to put them to the test. Why has he not sponsored a DBT? Claiming he agrees with sounds of capacitors and wires just remains an appeal to authority.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.