I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[event horizon]

Originally Posted by auplater

Then they aren't scientifically sound tests... this is relevant how?

Arguing that lousy scientific method and inattention to details results in erroneous results as some sort of condemnation of all of the various valid multivariate designs is like saying "my car won't run if I put water in the gas tank; hence cars are useless".

I'd suggest that having a minimum of 32 extra connections & unknown cabling connected in series with "cables under test" is seriously unscientific & will more than likely mask any differences what-so-ever between cables

It now appears that SY is not going to use an ABX box, we might actually get to the root of the problem & see some kind of light. I'll be happy to accept whatever answer is forthcoming, though i still maintain there are differences between cables dealing with digital data between transport & any DAC etc.

Oh happy days

[auplater]

Originally Posted by event horizon

I'd suggest that having a minimum of 32 extra connections & unknown cabling connected in series with "cables under test" is seriously unscientific & will more than likely mask any differences what-so-ever between cables

It now appears that SY is not going to use an ABX box, we might actually get to the root of the problem & see some kind of light. I'll be happy to accept whatever answer is forthcoming, though i still maintain there are differences between cables dealing with digital data between transport & any DAC etc.

Oh happy days

I don't beleive using an ABX box was ever part of the protocol...

Umm... why not "test the test" using a properly designed DBT to determine if the subject under test can hear a switchbox? Or is this too obvious for some??

I know, I know... it's just not fair, right??

[john curl]

We have done this, 30 years ago, in the past. We could separate the contacts of the Spiegel ABX switchbox from a straight wire, even though both went through silver on silver sliding contacts for the test.

[event horizon]

Originally Posted by auplater

Umm... why not "test the test" using a properly designed DBT to determine if the subject under test can hear a switchbox? Or is this too obvious for some??

I know, I know... it's just not fair, right??

Ok, you want to test to see if there are differences between cables yes?

So the scientific method is to insert at least 4 times as many connections on top of the standard cable connections & some unknown cableing as well

Erm, am i the only person that thinks this is like this


Like i said, SY isn't going to use an ABX box..... We might actually get nearer to some kind of reality

[janneman]

Why? You can listen with an ABX in the system, and without one. Then see if you hear a difference. Isn't that straightforward?

jd

[boconnor]

Originally Posted by thetubeguy1954

So we've come to believe that measurements are useful tools but as Olson says and Toole paraphrases "In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."...

You might have missed this from an earlier post. I think it's a reasonable summary of Toole's position on objective and subjective tests:

I have now had an opportunity to relook at Toole’s book [Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms Focal Press 2008]. It turns out that he makes a number of comments concerning subjective and objective measurements that are relevant to this debate. Even though the book is about loudspeakers, he makes some very strong and pointed comments about subjective listening tests.

For instance, in Chapter 17 Loudspeakers I: Subjective Evaluations he has this to say concerning bias in sighted listening tests (page 345):

“It is not a mystery that knowledge of the products being evaluated is a powerful source of psychological bias. In comparison tests of many kinds, especially in wine tasting and drug testing, considerable effort is expended to ensure the anonymity of the devices or substances being evaluated. If the mind thinks that something is real, the appropriate perceptions or bodily reactions can follow. In audio, many otherwise serious people persist in the belief that they can ignore such non-auditory factors as price, size, brand, and so on."

On the same page:

“In controlled listening tests and in measurements, electronic devices in general, speaker wire, and audio-frequency interconnection cables are found to exhibit small to non-existent differences.”

And again:

“This is a segment of the audio industry that is aptly described as ‘faith-based’. If you believe something, there is a possibility that you will hear it, and if you hear it, nothing can persuade you that, in a fully sighted evaluation, you might have been mistaken.”

After describing some experiments which sought to control the physical and psychological variables involving listening tests with loudspeakers, Toole summarises what was learnt from his research (page 361):

“…it is clear that knowing the identities of loudspeakers under tests can change subjective ratings. They can change the ratings to correspond to presumed capabilities of the product, based on price, size, or reputation. So strong is that attachment of ‘perceived’ sound quality to the identity of the product that in sighted tests, listeners substantially ignored easily audible problems associated with loudspeaker location in the room and interactions with different programs."

Further:

“These findings mean that if one wishes to obtain candid opinions about how a loudspeaker sounds, the tests must (his italics) be done blind.”

In another chapter, Chapter 18: Loudspeakers II: Objective Evaluations, Toole describes research linking the results of objective measurements with those from controlled listening tests. After noting that better measurements have helped loudspeaker manufacturers create better products, he makes these further observations about subjective, uncontrolled listening (page 393):

“Reviewers continue to ignore the scientific method, and a few even disparage those who follow it.”

And,

“Listening tests continue to be of the ‘take it home and listen to it’ kind, so many important variables are not controlled, and adaption and bias are both factors.”

[Panicos K]

Originally Posted by janneman

Why? You can listen with an ABX in the system, and without one. Then see if you hear a difference. Isn't that straightforward?

jd

What if you like the sound through the box ?

[chchyong89]

YouTube - Audio Myths Workshop
now this video seem interesting.

[event horizon]

Originally Posted by janneman

Why? You can listen with an ABX in the system, and without one. Then see if you hear a difference. Isn't that straightforward?

jd

Yes, indeed it is However, i'm sure you have missed something, how am i going to listen to my system & then switch to something that the ABX box is connected to. Wouldn't i need a second switchbox to connect another "in line" for testing purposes? Oh dear, i'm not allowed to be subjective. How do i test objectively to see if i can hear a difference with all the new connections with an ABX box added, then another to disconnect the first? If i do it manually, which is the only way of doing it without incorporating a second switchbox, i'd be accused of "peeking".

Or are you going to take someones word for it that there are differences with all these extra connections? I mean if one connection doesn't make a difference then 1,000,000 x 1 won't? No?

Like i said previously, i'd rather have as few connections as possible & i'd take a cheap cable & connectors over lots of connections.

Bests jd

Mark.

[rdf]

Originally Posted by SY

Seriously, rdf, you're still making things up. Why? I had thought you were capable of honest debate, but I'm starting to have serious doubts. You certainly read the protocol for TG's test, because you commented and discussed it extensively; the test wasn't suddenly developed in the last few days. Then suddenly, you throw an ABX box red herring into the mix (which you have never used, listened to, tested, whatever) and follow up that misrepresentation by attributing positions to me that I've never taken. That is, frankly, dishonest, and I am terribly disappointed that you, of all people, would resort to that sort of below-the-belt tactic.

Lol, that somber tome reeks of desperation. Now misrepresenting obvious irony/sarcasm? This thread has dozens of interlocking sub-threads, my comment originally focused on our discussion of the wisdom of using an ABX box, one in which you further took an earlier tact of misrepresentation, claiming I called it full of RF and ground issues. It doesn't take much for anyone who wants to clear this up to go back a few pages.
Game on I guess SY, if you can't respond logically play to the crowd? The gulf between scientists and engineers isn't nearly as wide as I thought. Welcome to the cheap seats.