Which are the valid points? I read a lot of accusations and anger.
He did not go into the details of the test. A DBT can only test within its scope. It would have been interesting to do a test with the final sample that showed the audible error.
Why continue to ask people who obviously think Double Blind Testing is flawed and or useless why they are not interested in participating in Double Blind Testing?
Have you ever spent a month or two with a freebie in your system and then swapped in a 500 dollar set of IC's and spent a month listening to the new cables with an objective attitude towards the whole thing? Are you even capable of doing that? Are you interested in doing that?
If not, then is it because you believe cables are inaudible and a comparison like that would be a waste of your time and or money?
People don't really have interest in things they don't believe. I personally don't know what the answer is but getting together with some audio geeks for the sole purpose of swapping out cables has absolutely no appeal for me. Especially after the extensive tube rolling I did. The tube rolling taught me that the methods for your testing were not very effective because I had problems telling tubes apart when purposely swapping then in and out looking for particular differences ie: more bass, smoother highs, etc. I couldn't even do it sighted.
BUT, I was able to discern differences of each tube when I simply put one tube in my preamp and proceeded to listen and enjoy my music for a week or month before trying a new tube. Sometimes I could tell instantly such as the difference between an RCA 12BH7A and a Siemens 5814A, but more often than not the differences were subtle and could not be picked out using an attitude where you go looking for the differences. They are often too complex to be absorbed in a few hours or days.
It has nothing to do with being afraid of participating, It has more to do with being smart enough to know those conditions will not provide any reliable results.
Please try and understand that, your assumption we are all afraid of finding out we wasted money is completely wrong.
We have yet to hear why DBTs are flawed or useless. Please elaborate on the issues.
You have what I consider, RIGHT, olblueyez. First, some things are obvious, then other things require close A-B tests, and still other things require weeks or months to get their sonic 'signature'. I have in my mind the 'signature' of my Dyna PAS3X tube preamp (used for 10 years), my Mark Levinson JC-2 (used for 8 years), my JC-80 (used for 10 years), and now, my CTC Blowtorch (used for 10 years).
These are mostly, my 'children' and the Levinson JC-2 has the most features and is the most attractive. Why don't I use it, then? I can now easily hear its 'flaws' both measurable and 'unmeasurable'. Someone here, in fact many here, would not easily hear its 'flaws' without extensive exposure listening to it, as I have. Now, it would slightly aggravate me. Nothing serious, but just a reminder of my past oversights to detail in the design and layout. It would be like a Porsche designer driving one of the first examples of the 911 that he helped develop, when he normally uses a more advanced 911 in normal use. For a beginner, original 911 might be the greatest thing since canned milk, but not to the designer.
The main thing is that in audio, subtle differences are everything, gross differences have been minimized, even in very cost effective equipment.
These are mostly, my 'children' and the Levinson JC-2 has the most features and is the most attractive. Why don't I use it, then? I can now easily hear its 'flaws' both measurable and 'unmeasurable'. Someone here, in fact many here, would not easily hear its 'flaws' without extensive exposure listening to it, as I have. Now, it would slightly aggravate me. Nothing serious, but just a reminder of my past oversights to detail in the design and layout. It would be like a Porsche designer driving one of the first examples of the 911 that he helped develop, when he normally uses a more advanced 911 in normal use. For a beginner, original 911 might be the greatest thing since canned milk, but not to the designer.
The main thing is that in audio, subtle differences are everything, gross differences have been minimized, even in very cost effective equipment.
Last edited:
Sorry, where in that post did you hide the arguments that address why DBTs are "flawed and or useless"?
C'mon now Markus, can't you use your imagination a bit more, just for once?
Meditate on that post for a while, perhaps??
Actually, saying something meaningful is too. Can't find any rational argument in 14555.
Hope you find the time to explain again what exactly is "flawed and or useless" about DBTs - this time in simple words so even I can understand it.
Sorry have to go now.
I'm about to pull the trigger on a Peter Daniels 4780 kit, I'm just not sure what is the best way to set it up yet?
Two groups?
There seems to be roughly two groups of people in this debate:
Group A
Changing Beliefs
As a person in Group A I was thinking about what would have to happen for me to change my beliefs about cable audibility. I think that if SY’s test delivered a positive result that would be significant. On that basis engineers should investigate and explain the differences perceived. Perhaps some part of our knowledge of the objective parameters we can measure need to be fixed. That’s worthwhile to pursue.
As for the criteria for a person in Group B to change their mind….?
There seems to be roughly two groups of people in this debate:
Group A
- Trust in the accumulated knowledge created by scientists and engineers, even if they don’t, themselves, understand all the details.
- Trust and accept the accumulated knowledge created by psychologist and scientists concerned perceptual bias, placebo effect and other ways people can deceive themselves.
- Accept that the current level of audio knowledge precludes any audible differences between cables that measure the same on objective criteria (frequency response, distortion etc).
- Understand and accept the validity of double blind tests.
- Trust that if cable differences were accepted as valid by audio engineers and scientists then they would investigate them, given their known desire to expand fields of knowledge.
- Trust in the accumulated knowledge created by scientists and engineers, even if they don’t, themselves, understand all the details
- Accept the accumulated knowledge created by psychologist and scientists concerned perceptual bias, placebo effect and other ways people can deceive themselves. However, believe that those effects are not universal and do not apply to their personal experience (or those of others) if the process of listening to cables was done honestly.
- Believe that accumulated knowledge about audio (including about cables) is trustworthy, but is necessarily incomplete. That is, there are some things that are experienced that cannot be explained by current theories.
- Understand the methods of double blind tests, but believe that flaws in their design or execution means they do not truthfully capture the differences experienced by those who have heard differences between cables.
Changing Beliefs
As a person in Group A I was thinking about what would have to happen for me to change my beliefs about cable audibility. I think that if SY’s test delivered a positive result that would be significant. On that basis engineers should investigate and explain the differences perceived. Perhaps some part of our knowledge of the objective parameters we can measure need to be fixed. That’s worthwhile to pursue.
As for the criteria for a person in Group B to change their mind….?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.