Burn In speakercable - Page 101 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 6th January 2010, 10:15 AM   #1001
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
http://www.qscaudio.com/support/libr...als/abxman.pdf

Page 10 has a nice and simple explanation of the statistics. 8 out of 10 would certainly satisfy me (and most other skeptics) that there's something going on. 9 or 10 out of 10 would get the trial publishable.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 11:37 AM   #1002
syn08 is offline syn08  Canada
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
8 out of 10 would certainly satisfy me (and most other skeptics) that there's something going on.
Me too. Usually, such a result is good grounds for repeating the test.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 11:46 AM   #1003
Jakob2 is offline Jakob2  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
http://www.qscaudio.com/support/libr...als/abxman.pdf

Page 10 has a nice and simple explanation of the statistics. 8 out of 10 would certainly satisfy me (and most other skeptics) that there's something going on. 9 or 10 out of 10 would get the trial publishable.
The phrase "about a 95% confidence level" is right as it means ~95% doesn´t it?

The "exact" number for 8 out of ten is 0.05468.... so that fits.

I don´t know what did happen during the calculation of the mentioned table, but would guess that they did calculate for a two sided test and forgot to mention it.

Together with the underlying phrase

"The table on this page lists a recommended range of trials, and the minimum number of correct responses
necessary to reach a 95% or better level of confidence."

the content of the table is wrong, as for example a 11 trial run gives p=0.113 for random guessing 8 or more correct answers.

It might be useful to do two sided tests (Leventhal had a paper on a topic
"statistical significant poor performance") but routinely it is a one sided test.

Wishes
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 11:54 AM   #1004
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
0.054 rounds down to 0.05. Close enough.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 12:19 PM   #1005
Jakob2 is offline Jakob2  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: germany
Normally the exact number would round to 0.055 and then......

I wouldn´t try to bring it down with rounding tricks, but as said before i´d be fine with 0.055 and report it that way.

Wishes
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 01:39 PM   #1006
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Default future test methods?

Since at least one "believer" has proposed all sorts of metallurgical, anisotropic micro-rheological like, and surface anisotropies, not to mention dielectric and insulative issues, with no corroborative evidence of any sort, , as probable causes for "burn in" and other cable differential behaviors, perhaps a Plackett-Burman type multi-factor design could yield some insight into the reality of said claims and beliefs and put them to rest

Not that I'd be interested in setting such an experiment up; , but it could provide an efficient screening methodology, assuming 2nd and higher order confounding has minimal effect. If not the case, there are other Hadamard matix type designs which significantly minimize trials and maximize results. The fly in the ointment is doing the up front work to design the tests properly.

A brief summary at the Wiki article:

Plackett–Burman design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2010, 01:43 PM   #1007
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
There's all sorts of interesting things to do IF the differences are shown to be audible. If not, who cares?
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 04:42 PM   #1008
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
There's all sorts of interesting things to do IF the differences are shown to be audible. If not, who cares?
@ SY -

Without me having to go back and re-reading 20 pages again... Is there anything preventing a test-ee from making measurements and discerning a difference that way? - Essentially cheating by not using their listening skills alone?

I'm not as knowledgeable as you are regarding the ability to use instruments to 'measure' a burn-in difference. However, if you are sure that there is no measurable difference, I'm fine with it.


I do know that I have made measurements between components before which show a plainly obvious difference, even though no one could prove they heard anything.


Also, have we defined what will be used to listen? Is it music? Is it white / pink noise? Not that anything will make a difference, but again - unforeseen consequences.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 04:47 PM   #1009
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Honestly, I don't care if he can measure a difference or not. If there IS a difference, whether audible or measurable, that's really big news.

That said, I don't think there will be any measurable difference.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 04:47 PM   #1010
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Hey Oatmeal - this thread had been quiet for over 24 hours. I thought SY had killed it off.

From my reading of the test, there is no reason the person being testing can not measure. It is not believed that the differences will be measurable. If they are, that's certainly interesting news.

EDIT. SY posted at the same time.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why burn in? sianturi Multi-Way 17 1st January 2010 11:22 PM
burn in of components jitter Parts 25 30th April 2009 07:47 AM
Burn in on speakers Nordic Multi-Way 5 16th November 2006 10:13 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2