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

[ShinOBIWAN]

Originally posted by auplater


Wonderful!! A cable thread morphing into a subjective/objective DBT/ABX/ proselytization...

HOW COOL IS THAT???

John L.

[fizzard]

The only real problem with ABX is that it would work.

[jlsem]

The only real problem with ABX is that it would work.

Of course it would. The only real problem is putting a PROPER test in place.

John

[fizzard]

Originally posted by jlsem


Of course it would. The only real problem is putting a PROPER test in place.

John

It's quite trivial actually. It's been said a thousand times that putting a proper test in place is hard, but nobody has said how to put a proper on in place, or what's so improper about suggested strategies. They just claim it's improper, and leave it there. Any blind test that would satisfy scientific rigor would do. Maybe one of the experts who knows so much about testing could come up with a suitable blind test.

[fredex]

There is no doubt in my mind that the testing methods used to
evaluate HiFi gear are beyond reproach even though they give
answers that some people don't like.

My Story
Early on I worked as an electronics tech and believed that the
advancement of audio quality was a purely scientific endevour.
Then the subjectivists got in on the act. I remember going to a HiFi
shop and seeing the first Naim setup."where are the tone controls?"
I asked. I was told they are omitted because they ruin the sound.
They had a Linn LP12 setup along side the most expensive Direct
Drive TT available at that time both sporting identical arms and
cartridges. I thought they sounded the same until the salesman
said, "Listen to the chestiness in Tom Jones voice on the Linn."
Well I was amazed, Tom was definitely more chesty on the Linn.

Hey this was a lot more exciting than charts and numbers. After that
I was convinced that science didn't have all the answers but "HiFi
Answers" (UK magazine) did. I brought a Linn to drive my home
brew transistor amps. Then I rediscovered tubes. Measure worse
sound better. Then "cables" came along and I was floored again,
they all sounded so different, this was no illusion they definitely
sounded different. After awhile I settled on some cables and was
shocked a year later when I dragged out some of those cables to
find that I couldn't hear any differences. Oh dear my ears must be
going. Then I listened to a Sonic Impact, Oh dear again, that little
sucker is doing things my trick tube SE amp makes a mess of.
Maybe there is something in THD and IM measurements after all. . .

For the end user it is all about "audibility" and not whether there
are differences or not. Every stereo amp will measure differences
between channels. There are no speakers identical to each other.
Buy a pair of $5,000 interconnects and there will be a difference
between the left and right, the question is "can you hear that?"

DBT ABX are all about establishing what is audible and what is not.
So far it seems that the Golden Ears are "on average" pretty much
deluded.
"On average" however does allow the possiblity that some people
may have exceptional hearing. Obviously the golden ears on this
forum belong in this group and they are the very people that the
scientists would love to test.

I only wish that I was able to hear cable differences again, back
then Randi's one million dollar prize wasn't on offer.

[Salas]

Originally posted by salas


If an illusion, I have wrote some thoughts on its psychotropic use in hi-fi culture in the previous page.

I have put a question there. --If cable differences are a sighted (normal way of listening) test illusion, will ABX proof hinder the illusion to reoccur?--

Your thoughts?

I asked that a couple of times. No one added a thought or an experience.

I will rephrase:

Did you keep getting sighted listening illusions of cable differences during normal listening sessions AFTER some DBT or ABX test proved that you CANT tell cables apart?

[rdf]

Originally posted by fredex
So far it seems that the Golden Ears are "on average" pretty much deluded.

Or the ABX tests thus far performed poor. It's an option.

[audio-kraut]

Or the ABX tests thus far performed poor.

1. something can only perform poorly - but, as an esl, I might be wrongly....

2. How can a test perform poorly? It can only be designed poorly, so the test is open to criticism as to methodology, and the results from such a poorly designed test are invalid.
It can also be that the methodology might be designed to test the hypothesis, but the analysis of the results is flawed through errors in the statistical approach.

3. The test subjects performed poorly, being unable to discern differences.

Which is it?

[rdf]

Of those I've seen #2.

[audio-kraut]

So, what is the proper methodology?

None, and I repeat none, of the tests that have so far been conducted, following stringent scientific methodology or not, even hinted at the possibility of audibility of cables of different construction.

The general claim was and is - and I charge anybody who now comes forward and softens the claims to: "slight differences" as guilty of subterfuge, evasion and/or outright lying - that the differences are CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY audible no ifs, whens or buts.

If the influences are of a nature as stated, then even a scientifically non rigorous conducted A/B blinded test should reveal such CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY differences. But none has, not a single one, starting with Tom Nousaines test, tests by members of hydrogene audio, several test on german audio forums, etc. etc. has been able to reveal such audibility.