I thought the idea was to initially have two sets that were marked burnt in and not burnt in. If you can hear a difference with those then the rest of the cables are sent to you which are not identified and you then have to sort them into two groups. I thought the idea was to find out if you can you hear a difference, not to correctly identify which was burnt in?
As long as he reports hearing a difference, it doesn't matter whether or not he's correct as to which one is which- he claims to hear a difference, now comes the time to do the sorting.
Let's not jump to conclusions. Ultimately, who can be trusted? The only way this can be rigged is if Andre accepts to cheat and the person who burns the cables gives him the answer. For some reason I don't think that Andre would do that and I don't think that the cable man would try. As I said before, some of us will never accept the results of the test.
if it's preferable, I can send both cables un-burned to SY. Then he can burn them in, write down which is which, and send them to Andre at which point Andre will have to run his selection by SY. That way the new guy (that's me) is out of the picture.... other than making the cables of course
Agreed. Even if he couldn't and lied, or thought he could and didn't, etc. he is 1:1 to choose correctly. Anyone can flip a coin.
At this point it does not matter 'which is which', only if he thinks he can tell a difference. Even if it did matter, a single pick is meaningless. Generally 10-12 correct in a row are considered as statistically viable.
You've drawn your own conclusions from my post I see.
2 cable = 50/50 chance. A lucky guess?
It's human (and logical) to assume that a test may be rigged - why not make it harder to "cheat"?
I understood that the one-pair test was solely meant for Andre to give him confidence that he could do the real test. Iow, the one pair test isn't a test at all in the sense that the 10-pair test is. If Andre can't hear a difference, he can then step back and it's the end of it.
To avoid any discussion later on, it is not a good idea to let Yacco provide a pair of which one pair is burned in. He does have a vested interest, and although I have no reason to think he would somehow manipulate it, he is subject to the same biases and expectations etc. we try to eliminate in this test. Even asking him to provide two identical cables for someone else to burn in has the risk that they aren't really identical. But you've got to stop somewhere I guess.
jd
You have stated over and over that you can hear a difference, why muck around with this? Onward to the real test already.
Why test if he can't hear a difference? The only reason to carry on with testing, would be after he believes he hears differences in the cables to be tested.
True, and as has been posted earlier, no matter what, there will be people who don't accept the results. Maybe even me, but the spirit of it seems sound.
Since we are contending that there is no 'audible' difference, as long as the cables are indistinguishable in every way when he gets them, there isn't a problem.
Now, if there are differences which may be measurable, but not actually audible (And I defer to SY's expertise, and perhaps even John Curl's as to whether there are measurable differences...) - well, there would be no way to prevent him from making a distinction that way.
This stuff keeps being amusing. 90% of the proposed mechanisms for the improvements of burn-in are there in spades in cheaper wire.
Exactly. I hear back peddling.
It was an obvious thing before - a critical step for any new cable, this burn in.
Like I said some posts ago - absurd.
Without a doubt the cheaper wire needs burning in more than the expensive cable. If not there shouldn't be such a difference in price. The really good cables should hardly need any burning in because of their superior materials and construction. No sitting on the fence here.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.