How much does your stuff weigh, Dan? Any detectable amount of additional "heft" in the treated buds could make them "feel" like they were of higher quality.
Hell, McIntosh used to glue a piece of 1/8"-ish steel plate inside the bottom covers of their otherwise-crappy plastic remote controls for just this purpose. (Felt pretty impressive too, except for when the glue bond would come loose and the thing would start rattling around in there, which we observed more than once.)
Scoff all you want, but all this stuff matters if you're attempting a truly blind test.
Hell, McIntosh used to glue a piece of 1/8"-ish steel plate inside the bottom covers of their otherwise-crappy plastic remote controls for just this purpose. (Felt pretty impressive too, except for when the glue bond would come loose and the thing would start rattling around in there, which we observed more than once.)
Scoff all you want, but all this stuff matters if you're attempting a truly blind test.
The other night, after reading a bunch of stuff here, I thought that I would go back and try to understand how electricity, or at least an electrical signal, flows, not in general, but exactly, or at least, intuitively.
When we are young, we are taught that electricity 'flows' in a wire. Most people think of it like a garden hose and water. It has many similarities to the water hose. You can compare Voltage to water pressure, Current to water flow, Resistance to the restriction of flow in the pipe. It all makes sense to a 10 year old mind.
Later, you get the fact that water is made of atoms, but electricity is usually made of electrons that carry an electric charge, and that electrons are usually connected to atoms as well, but some are more loosely connected to each atom, and while pure water cannot pass significant electricity through it, metals, as well as salts dissolved in wire can allow electricity flow.
Later, usually in college, we learn that with a lot of math associated with it, we can predict flow of electricity in time through various configurations, including just plain wires. We learn about Maxwell's Equations, and how elegant they appear to be, and this should be all there is to it.
Yet, where do electrons come in with Maxwell's Equations? Further study shows that electrons were not discovered in Maxwell's lifetime, so how do they fit in? So here we are, we can calculate the SPEED of an electrical signal in a length of wire, but what about the electron speed? They cannot go that fast we are told. Then we guess that one electron bumping into an atom while moving will release another electron to keep the electrical signal flowing, but can it be done near the speed of light? Kind of tough. All in all, it all falls apart, intuitively, yet it works! Oh well, why not then go with what we hear, rather than only what we are taught in school? We own our ears, and we usually can depend on them, so that's what Dan and I do.
When we are young, we are taught that electricity 'flows' in a wire. Most people think of it like a garden hose and water. It has many similarities to the water hose. You can compare Voltage to water pressure, Current to water flow, Resistance to the restriction of flow in the pipe. It all makes sense to a 10 year old mind.
Later, you get the fact that water is made of atoms, but electricity is usually made of electrons that carry an electric charge, and that electrons are usually connected to atoms as well, but some are more loosely connected to each atom, and while pure water cannot pass significant electricity through it, metals, as well as salts dissolved in wire can allow electricity flow.
Later, usually in college, we learn that with a lot of math associated with it, we can predict flow of electricity in time through various configurations, including just plain wires. We learn about Maxwell's Equations, and how elegant they appear to be, and this should be all there is to it.
Yet, where do electrons come in with Maxwell's Equations? Further study shows that electrons were not discovered in Maxwell's lifetime, so how do they fit in? So here we are, we can calculate the SPEED of an electrical signal in a length of wire, but what about the electron speed? They cannot go that fast we are told. Then we guess that one electron bumping into an atom while moving will release another electron to keep the electrical signal flowing, but can it be done near the speed of light? Kind of tough. All in all, it all falls apart, intuitively, yet it works! Oh well, why not then go with what we hear, rather than only what we are taught in school? We own our ears, and we usually can depend on them, so that's what Dan and I do.
Indeed all that matters.
Even the length of listening time has to be exactly the same or familiarity will sway the results.
In a true blind test you really need to not be around as your body language can even skew the results.
Last edited:
Once someone gave me a device to improve the sound of early CD players. It sounded nice to me so I agreed to bring it to Taiwan and see if it would gather interest. One store owner demonstrated that the sound would be different if you put it on it’s side. I found it in the corner of one of my shelves the other day...
How did you determine the randomness of the placing?
Let me explain to you how your 'experiment' fails.
What you did
You got two sets of earbuds.
You assumed that they were identical.
You opened one set, applied your magic goop to it, and stuck it back together.
You placed them on a table in a way that you assumed to be random.
You asked three people to try them.
What you did not do.
Have people try them before one was altered to see if they showed any preference for one or the other right out of the box.
Crack open both sets, but only apply the substance to one, minimizing the effect of the disassembly/reassembly process on the outcome.
Use a third 'control' set with a different substance of a similar weight and consistency as your goop, say.. toothpaste or something, to see if maybe it was just the adding of mass or baffling that made a difference.
Use a double blind test where neither the subjects nor you knew which was which so no bias could be introduced in the 'randomization' process.
Test with a statistically significant number of subjects. Three isn't enough.
So what you proved is that three of your buddies said one pair sounded better, but you didn't prove that it had anything to do with your goop.
You need to learn to use a lot more care in the planning and execution of your experiments, which is much better advice than you're getting from someone else.
Yes, it is sad, very sad that such collection of intelligent minds here are 'so certain' that the nature of conduction is immutable and fully described by mathematics.
Noteworthy is that none of the objectors vocalising so loudly have ever attempted to trial the likes of BQP.
As for changing Cognac, I have many times done similar experiment with white and red wines and the result is always beneficial change.
Interestingly some physical properties of the wines change....the meniscus climbs a little higher in the glass, the appearance of the wine changes to ruby/diamond like clarity, and the taste changes to reveal more taste of the original fruit with delicious sweetness and more pleasant after taste and 'roughness' gone.
I have run such wine AB experiments with friends, and spectacularly funny is the 'lemon juice' facial reaction to sampling the non treated control glass after having sampled the treated wine.
This test has also been performed with an accredited wine judge who agreed that his two bottles tasted different after one was treated, when previously they did not....his preference was for the non treated wine and as such he is the only subject of many indicating this preference.
So called 'New Age Medicine' is describing actions, reactions and couplings that do not fully accord with conventional accepted theories.
Acoustic resonance coupling (the wine glass shattering experiment) works, radio works through magnetic disturbance resonance coupling and both are simple couplings.
It seems that there are more complex couplings where a 'spectrum' is involved instead of simple single carrier frequency of disturbance.
Dan.
We measure to confirm what we think our results are.
I have a lot of money tied up in accurate test gear so I can confirm my results.
If I make a change I want to know is that change truly for the better, or is it my
bias because I have an investment of time and money in making that change.
I have a lot of money tied up in accurate test gear so I can confirm my results.
If I make a change I want to know is that change truly for the better, or is it my
bias because I have an investment of time and money in making that change.
You are making assertions that are not true.
I listened to both headphones straight out of the box and was satisfied that they were indistinguishable.
I opened both sets and applied the treatment to one pair before reassembly of both pairs.
I marked the inside radius of the right angle plug with a tiny black dot that neither I or the subject would notice without informing and deliberate looking.
The blind testing was randomly placing both pairs on the coffee table with no identifiers visible...I did not know which was which at the commencement of the experiment and stated so, and did not know until after the completion of each of the experiments.
The three experiments were independently conducted and at different times, not one experiment with more than one subject present.
All subjects described the changes in similar terms...'much clearer sound, more bass, vocals more intelligible, not tinny' etc.
This round of testings is perfectly valid, more subjects will merely confirm these findings.
Dan.
Last edited:
We're not the ones selling the things. We don't have to measure to enjoy, but we expect sellers claims to be able to be backed up by measurements so that people aren't defrauded. How hard is it for you to understand that?
Why no measurements? Ever? Because measurements would show that the devices do not work. Nobody wants to blow into that BA meter the cop is giving them on the side of the road at 2AM. Because they're drunk and they know it. And they all have a story about how they're not drunk. Same thing here.
Why no measurements? Ever? Because measurements would show that the devices do not work. Nobody wants to blow into that BA meter the cop is giving them on the side of the road at 2AM. Because they're drunk and they know it. And they all have a story about how they're not drunk. Same thing here.
Soongsg, you have it backwards.
I recently made a serious attempt to learn how to measure the performance of my loudspeakers as accurately as I could manage. I then applied some corrections based on these adjustments. Now I have an audio system that sounds much, much better than I could ever have achieved using my ears alone (and my ears are pretty good, if I do say so myself).
But how do I know this? How do I know that I haven't fooled myself into believing that since I took all the time to carefully measure and adjust, well it must sound better, right?
Of course I can't answer that question perfectly. I don't doubt that there's a little of the above influence at work when I listen. But here's the thing: I did all this stuff like 2 or 3 years ago. Since then, I've made some minor tweaks here and there, but for the most part, I haven't felt the need - everything I listen to these days sounds immensely enjoyable, natural, and organic. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine any placebo effect enduring for this length of time. (It certainly didn't when I was just trusting my ears.)
On the other hand, it looks to me as if you guys are never finished with all the goop, blocks, dirt boxes, stickers, and god knows what all. This makes sense, actually - if there are no rules, there's no end in sight. So I will ask you your own question: When do you get to stop dicking around with all this stuff, and enjoy the music?
I recently made a serious attempt to learn how to measure the performance of my loudspeakers as accurately as I could manage. I then applied some corrections based on these adjustments. Now I have an audio system that sounds much, much better than I could ever have achieved using my ears alone (and my ears are pretty good, if I do say so myself).
But how do I know this? How do I know that I haven't fooled myself into believing that since I took all the time to carefully measure and adjust, well it must sound better, right?
Of course I can't answer that question perfectly. I don't doubt that there's a little of the above influence at work when I listen. But here's the thing: I did all this stuff like 2 or 3 years ago. Since then, I've made some minor tweaks here and there, but for the most part, I haven't felt the need - everything I listen to these days sounds immensely enjoyable, natural, and organic. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine any placebo effect enduring for this length of time. (It certainly didn't when I was just trusting my ears.)
On the other hand, it looks to me as if you guys are never finished with all the goop, blocks, dirt boxes, stickers, and god knows what all. This makes sense, actually - if there are no rules, there's no end in sight. So I will ask you your own question: When do you get to stop dicking around with all this stuff, and enjoy the music?
Last edited:
Yeah, easy to say that now that I've pointed these things out to you, you didn't say any of this earlier.
And you know this how? Three people is statistically insignificant. You could test three more people and get the opposite result from them. You need a much larger sampling to really have a valid test.
Last edited:
Good points, and ones that I have already considered.
In this case the increase in mass is bugger all, well less than 100 mg.
Dan.
No.
These Sony el cheapo ear bleeders were on the local supermarket discontinued shelf for $3.99 down from $11.99.
There were only two pairs, if three were available I would have bought all three for the control purpose you describe.
From prior experience, I expect addition of pretty much any material will subtly alter the 'sound' of these ear buds....the nature and magnitude of such changes predictably differs according to mixtures used.
Dan.
I do lots of measurements during development as well. I think you will know if you read my blog.
The thing is, what measurements I find important may not be the same as others. Further more, when I find things that sound different, which the canned measurements people use as reference do not reveal, I need to find alternate methods which further could be far from what most people here can understand. So I just don’t care to explain unless I am providing paid consulting services. Additionally, this is the lounge and the snake oil thread, so why not have some fun? Other members can have fun responding whatever way that amuses them as well.
Whenever I get something in from a supplier does not meet expectations, I need to prove it through measurements as well...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.