Do speaker cables make any difference?

[fokker]

Originally posted by planet10
I believe what jneutron is saying, and i agree with him, is that to do a proper test, the source material needs to be choosen so that it is not confounding the results.

dave

that is only half true: don't need to show that for the source material to be an issue, you have to prove that it is "confunding" the results?

all we have here are factors under which the source material "could" confunding the results.

[SY]

The question's backward: how do you know what people can hear absent any rigorously controlled test?

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by planet10
And as designed is statistically unable to do so. To also be scientifically valid the results also need to be duplicatable... and if you think about the methodologies used, that in itself would be a real challenge.

Lets forget about ABX. It is a flawed test with no redemtion.

Please explain why ABX is "statistically unable" to test whether or not switching a specific component in a sound system is humanly audible.

You have not made a coherent argument against the protocol; if it exists elsewhere, in this thread or elsewhere on the internet, I'd like to read it.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by serengetiplains
Dumbass, what's the test for determining whether ABX testing captures all audio distinctions people actually hear? Just wondering.

I don't think anybody has ever claimed that ABX testing "captures all audio distinctions".

It's a method of doing a double-blinded, randomized test of the hypothesis that two specific audio components are not audibly distinguishable.

Or were you making a funny?

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by planet10
To also be scientifically valid the results also need to be duplicatable... and if you think about the methodologies used, that in itself would be a real challenge.

You would have to find a new sample of listeners and repeat the test.

Or use the same listeners, but on a different day and with different test equipment.

No different than any other psychological test.

[serengetiplains]

If ABX doesn't capture all audio distinctions, given a negative ABX result (ie, no ABX-audible difference), how can you then say two components are producing the audibly-same sound?

[SY]

You can't. Proving a negative is, as you well know, not philosophically possible. It's up to someone asserting that A is different than B to demonstrate a positive result in a controlled test (whether ABX or other).

[serengetiplains]

Which is to say we don't know the *value* of ABX testing, and perhaps never can.

[KBK]

Reductio ad absurdum.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by serengetiplains
If ABX doesn't capture all audio distinctions, given a negative ABX result (ie, no ABX-audible difference), how can you then say two components are producing the audibly-same sound?

There could be, for example, measureable differences between components which test subjects could not distinguish. That's the very essence of the ABX test, determining which differences are indeed audible to human beings.

As far as "captur[ing] all audio distinctions", I am not sure to what you are referring. I am certain we could come up with "audio distinctions" that would be all-but-impossible to test via ABX. For example, it would be very difficult to successfully blind a test of room treatments.