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

[tc-60guy]

As Laurence Oliver said in the movie Spartacus,........Some men like oysters and some men like snails, although Tony Curtis was giving him a sponge bath at the time so I don't think he was really talking about seafood! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

[AJinFLA]

Originally posted by rdf
I need to confirm it but, for another example, its appears the DAC in a Yamaha player used in a recent, highly publicized, hi-rez vs. 16-bit test is only capable of 17-bit rez.

OMG, so now there are measurements that affect sound? That sounds like something a stone deaf, graph staring meter reader might say. But it's great news!!
So now you can not only list your test methods for establishing audible differences, you can include the necessary measurable performance parameters of the system. Perhaps you can "reveal" the secret that Andre refused to divulge? The world awaits....

cheers,

AJ

[SY]

AJ, though rdf and I disagree on many issues, I have nothing but respect for his abilities to design and measure. He's an excellent engineer. I think that if you want to attack his ideas, there are better approaches.

[Alan Hope]

Originally posted by Bonsai
The only true test here is a full DBT.
...
BTW, she is a trained psychologist who knows all about this DBT stuff. It seems that humans have no limit to their fallability when it comes to subjective assessments. Hence the DBT - a scientifically respected methodology.

Notice how some folk claim the DBT is not valid when it comes to equipment assessment . . . . . where to next. To paraphrase someone from another thread, ' . . . no wonder High End Audio has a bad rap . . . '.

Nope. There is no reason that the guy swapping the cables over has to be blinded as to which cable he is attaching. Single-blind (just the listener) is statistically perfectly adequate.

I am not going to build ABX equipment just to achieve DBT status if it is no more discriminating than single-blind.

I'm sure your psychologist wife is aware of the current concerns over the validity of DBTs in medical circles. Things like exclusion criteria can seriously distort the results yet the fact that it is a DBT gives a piece of research this legendary "scientifically respected methodology" status and almost guaranteed publishing. A double edged sword! Ever wondered how 2 high quality DBTs can come to opposite conclusions?

Jakob2,
I think you misunderstand - I am the only listener here. It is multiple tests just with me. So a lot of variables are removed from the equation. And I am not in the least offended!

Cheers,

Alan

[SY]

Single-blind (just the listener) is statistically perfectly adequate.

I'm sorry, that's just not correct. For a classic example of the errors this induces, see the story of Clever Hans.

[Alan Hope]

Originally posted by SY


I'm sorry, that's just not correct. For a classic example of the errors this induces, see the story of Clever Hans.

Wow - coincidence - I told my daughter the story earlier this evening!

I've published my planned methodology above. My daughter will do the cable swapping - unblinded. But she and I will not see each other nor speak to each other at any point during the entire test. Perhaps that technically makes it a DBT - it certainly addresses the "Clever Hans" type concerns.

[fredex]

Originally posted by rdf


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

In a real scientific test, it is not an option.
No one here is interested in tests that prove nothing.
I am sure there are examples of faulty tests in all fields but the methodology of DBT has surely been nailed down by people who know what they are doing.

The results are a hard pill to swallow, as what they prove goes against what we experience.

[Salas]

Originally posted by fredex



In a real scientific test, it is not an option.
No one here is interested in tests that prove nothing.
I am sure there are examples of faulty tests in all fields but the methodology of DBT has surely been nailed down by people who know what they are doing.

The results are a hard pill to swallow, as what they prove goes against what we experience.

I ask for a third time. After we get proof that we can not distinguish cables after being subjected to DBT, will this prohibit the 'illusions' of sighted listening to reappear? (Later in normal -real life- listening.) If faith dies, miracles stop I think. But if miracles continue? Maybe sighted listening is far more analytical because one sense helps the other, and we must just delete fallibility pitfalls, but under sighted conditions? Maybe by a panel of people listening alone, keeping notes, and not allowed to communicate until results are processed?

Your input please.

[Jakob2]

@ Alan Hope,

Originally posted by Alan Hope

I think you misunderstand - I am the only listener here. It is multiple tests just with me. So a lot of variables are removed from the equation. And I am not in the least offended!

Yes, i realized that. I only wanted to point out, that among the roughly 100 different participants on my tests no one was performing as well as usual before doing some training under the specific test protocol.
Some test protocols were apparently easier to get used to as other, but even under these training was needed.
The only exception from this rule i´ve found so far, was in the case that listeners didn´t know they were participating in a somewhat ´official´ test procedure, because the protocol did follow extremely close their normal way while trying out new equipment.
But this is at this time just an informal statement as it has to be confirmed by future tests.

That´s why i emphasize strongly the use of controls; positive controls give you some certainty that the required sensitivity level was reached under the specific test conditions and the negative control assures against the ´clever hans´

@ Salas,

originally posted by salas

I ask for a third time. After we get proof that we can not distinguish cables after being subjected to DBT, will this prohibit the 'illusions' of sighted listening to reappear? (Later in normal -real life- listening.) If faith dies, miracles stop I think. But if miracles continue? Maybe sighted listening is far more analytical because one sense helps the other, and we must just delete fallibility pitfalls, but under sighted conditions? Maybe by a panel of people listening alone, keeping notes, and not allowed to communicate until results are processed?

It´s only anecdotical evidence (as it was reported by members on several forums) that they cured themselves from being ´golden ear´ after participating in blind tests and failing.
After that they were convinced that for example cables doesn´t make an audible difference, and that they before were influenced by autosuggestion and argued that they now didn´t hear any differences anymore and if they would hear any differences in the future they now know that is would be only suggestion.

Others, who failed in dbts, said they heared the differences in normal listening situations again, and remained using the ´voodoo stuff´ .

You are absolutely right in stating that `one sense helps the other´ because we normally are used to live in that way. I´d think this is well known and confirmed in the field of psychology.

That is one reason why people need some training for blind tests.

Jakob2

[AJinFLA]

Originally posted by SY
AJ, though rdf and I disagree on many issues, I have nothing but respect for his abilities to design and measure. He's an excellent engineer. I think that if you want to attack his ideas, there are better approaches.

Strawman! Shame on you SY. Where did I question or attack his abilities to design and measure? I have no clue what he designs and would probably have little or no interest unless it was loudspeakers - which I doubt.
I am asking him (or any other DBT rejectionist) point blank to explain what valid, scientific method(s) he uses to determine audible differences and what measurable parameters are important for such a system of stellar resolution. I (and others) can only benefit from such information....assuming it is applicable in the world of physical reality. If it is "something" outside of the sound waves impinging upon the ears and occurring only in the recipient advocates head, then it will do me no good. But I know that is not what he or similar claimer is advocating. So I await...

cheers,

AJ