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

[auplater]

Originally Posted by Jakob2

The effect we are looking for is an audible difference that occurs after the change of cables.
As in an double blind listening test the listener (who is an integral part of our experiment) is as much under test as the EUT, we have to ensure that the listener has the highest possible sensitivity for audible differences under blind test conditions.

Therefore my proposal to use positive controls for example from Paul Frindle´s list (who claimed to have confirmed quite small differences to be audible in ABX tests) or small amplitude response variation around 0.1dB (you earlier did point to the fact that level differences that small normally would be percepted as _sound_ difference not as level differences ), or use the difference between two cd-players that have been confirmed to be audible.

Wishes


P.S. As i renewed my suggestions already a lot of times, can i suppose that any further comment from you that my proposals were vague, would qualify for _dishonest_ discussion habits?!

In my opinion, these would not qualify as "positive controls"; more like another treatment combination to ascertain the effects of changing the SOURCE information and determining whether or not such SOURCE modifications may confound the outcome. Different experiment altogether.

To me, the positive control needs to be a cable/device that exhibits the kind of response proponents of cable sound promote (minute changes in timbre, difference in imaging, improvements in micro-details, that sort of thing) in a measurable and controlled manner that can be quantified.

Your proposed "positive control" does not address any of these at all

John L.

[Jakob2]

Originally Posted by janneman

... but your memory played tricks on you: it wasn't switch noise from the ABX. It was noise from the Sony PCM-1 that was switched in and out of the circuit. In circuit he heard the PCM noise that was absent out of circuit. That helped him identify when the PCM was in-circuit. Others, that missed the noise, couldn't hear any difference with a an AD/DA box in the system or not.

jd

While i would think, that regarding to the sensitivity of the listeners it did not make a difference if they failed to detect the hiss or the switching noise, you are right, Lipshitz wrote about the higher noise from the pcm.

But, he also wrote about the relay ´click sound´, but that was detected by Vanderkoy:

"I expressed my desire to try the test, and Remington went to cue up the record again, but I requested to be allowed to undertake the test with no signal passing though the system. Before realizing the import of what he was saying, Vanderkooy interjected: "Ah! You're going to listen to the sound of the relays." Yes, there is indeed a slight audible difference between the acoustic "click" made when the "A" and "B" relays pull in. This is due to the unavoidable differences in the mounting positions of the relay on the A/B/X box chassis and, although slight, it can be heard if one listens for it. I replied that I was going to listen to the difference in background hiss, and the subsequent series of blind trials showed conclusively that the two signal paths could be reliably distinguished on this basis alone."

quoted from:
Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

Wishes

[SY]

But again, you evaded the issue of an appropriate positive control. The claim, for the 10,000,000th time is, "I can hear a difference between wires/cables/interconnects/whatever that is NOT due to mundane factors." Now, what is an appropriate positive control for a wire test, something in wires unrelated to the mundane variables, that has an established threshold?

[Jakob2]

Originally Posted by auplater

In my opinion, these would not qualify as "positive controls"; more like another treatment combination to ascertain the effects of changing the SOURCE information and determining whether or not such SOURCE modifications may confound the outcome. Different experiment altogether.

To me, the positive control needs to be a cable/device that exhibits the kind of response proponents of cable sound promote (minute changes in timbre, difference in imaging, improvements in micro-details, that sort of thing) in a measurable and controlled manner that can be quantified.

Your proposed "positive control" does not address any of these at all

John L.

Why do you think so?

What you quoted above as response proponents can be subsumed as sound differences and of course reported are a full bag of other possible differences (like faster, clearer, more dull, exaggerated bass and so on), and that is exactly what the positive controls proposed will deliver.

Please remember that level differences that small will be percepted as sound differences; on the mentioned list from Paul Frindle´s paper you will find audible distorstion as low as -80dB, level differences as small as 0.05dB.

Or take for example the difference between an old philips cd player and third generation sony cd-player mentioned on the abx web site.
Normally a difference between two different devices will be described with respect to differences in the "sonic signature" of each device.

But of course other controls are thinkable, but there some requirements that must be fullfilled.

Wishes

[thetubeguy1954]

Originally Posted by gedlee

I agree with Auplater. And how is it that the use of poorly done DBT tests is criticized while the use of subjective listening - which no scientist would accept as having any validity - is not?

Floyd would say "First prove that you can actually hear what you claim.", then "The ear is the final judge". It's NOT a small caveat!!

Your question is extremely easy to answer! Although subjectivists don't outright dismiss science, measurements or specs, they don't primarily embrace them. Subjectivists do not claim their method is scientifically oriented. A subjectivist allows their ears to be the final judge.

While an objectivist primarily embraces science, measurements or specs. Objectivists claim their methods are scientifically oriented. A objectivist allows a DBT to be the final judge. Thus it's the very science and objectivity they embrace that demands the DBTs be criticized if not done properly!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

[thetubeguy1954]

Originally Posted by auplater

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??

Hello auplater!

Why the insistance of having unknown variable added i.e., an ABX box? This ABX box is never part of anyone's home audio system! The wires ---{which are the device actually being tested}--- can easily be manuelly switched without providing any Clever Hans clues provided proper protocols are followed!

I know, I know, not adding an unknown variable and only testing the wires... it's just not fair, right??

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by thetubeguy1954

A subjectivist allows their ears to be the final judge.

While an objectivist primarily embraces science, measurements or specs. Objectivists claim their methods are scientifically oriented. A objectivist allows a DBT to be the final judge. Thus it's the very science and objectivity they embrace that demands the DBTs be criticized if not done properly!

The ear as the final judge is fine as long as you realize and accept the unreliability of such a bassis of belief. To believe ears are infalible is simple too nieve to even be discussed.

No test done improperly is worth reviewing whether done by a subjectivist or and objectivist. The objectivist must hold himself to the same standards that he requires of others. It's the subjectivist that does not seem to have that requirement.

[thetubeguy1954]

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

Hello Janneman, Why? The answer is quite simple. Because the DBT doesn't require an unknown variable such as an ABX and extra wires added to the test and the system! The DBT can easily be done without one. Then I listen to see if I hear a difference just between one wire and another. Isn't that straightforward?

Personally I'm beginning to think now that someone has stepped up and accepted the challange to prove they can hear a difference in wires, you "supposedly" objective, scientifically oriented, measurements & specs guys are getting nervous.

You all know from the very beginning one of my stipulations was the wires be manuely switched sans an ABX box. This new almost insistance about the ABX box being added is a good way of trying to sabotage the the coming DBT and prevent the "truth" (whatever that may be) from coming out!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

[Jakob2]

Originally Posted by gedlee

The ear as the final judge is fine as long as you realize and accept the unreliability of such a bassis of belief. To believe ears are infalible is simple too nieve to even be discussed.

No test done improperly is worth reviewing whether done by a subjectivist or and objectivist. The objectivist must hold himself to the same standards that he requires of others. It's the subjectivist that does not seem to have that requirement.

While there is normally no way to avoid scientific standards, which must be used to test hypothesis, it unfortunately is true that at least in the field of audio test methodology quite often is not on par with these standards.

Furthermore it seems to exist a general unwillingness to replicate tests done by others to see if the results were reliable. Therefore quite often newer test results were in contradiction to older studies but no one ever tries to find explanation for that.

Otoh every designer has his own working hypothesis and wouldn´t be able to work if he could only evolve his product by using double blind tests.
And if double blind test will not help to raise the sales figures of any product, than it is questionable if someone will pay for extensive tests.

Wishes

[Jakob2]

@ thetubeguy1954,

that is simply a misunderstanding; our ongoing discussion about ABX switch boxes and their possible influence is in no way related to your test with SY.

In this thread we are dealing with a whole bunch of topics in different states of discussion.

Wishes