Are they strong enough to securely bind a grown man spread-eagle to a billiards table?
If so, I need 5.
Member
Joined 2002
Member
Joined 2002
Sticks chest out , grunts and yells OGABOOGA starts pounding chest ME GORILLA!!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Just a few additional comments on Sturm´s DBT on cables.
Positive things were definitely that he did preliminary tests and could therefore refine his test protocol, and that he included a negative control; he even included a second one (swapped the cd players in run b) but at that point unfortunately he tried too much as he included a special "tuned" cd for the more expensive cable.
The inclusion of an additional variable at that point would/could superimpose one of the other effects.
The objective of his test (hypothese no. 1) was to show that the better (and more expensive) interconnect would be favoured by the participants.
The test failed in this regard and that might be the reason why it wasn´t spreaded all over the world. 🙂
Due to this objective it was a double blind test as the switching person could not identify which cable was connected to one of the players.
As SY pointed out the negative control trial (no. 3) wasn´t double blind anymore, as the switch was only pretended and therefore the same cable was played twice.
From the result of the test overall it must be concluded that a difference was detected, but the reason is not clear.
An additional concern would be that, that wrt to only a difference, the test would be no longer DBT.
OTOH if you study the results for each trial, they were not consistent in a way that made an unintentional influence by the switching person probable.
The unintentional influence is something important to keep in mind as they could be dangerous.
(Of course intentional too, but if we´d assume that, then it would be much easier to fake just the results, and therefore we would need a much higher level of effort and security to guard against this)
Janneman once asked if it was mainly the version "b" in each trial that was preferred but that wasn´t the case.
There was in any case an inverted result between the two runs, and no explanation exists for this fact.
In the earlier discussion in a german forum i mentioned that i often found with participants that it took quite a long time until they thought the same piece of music sounds exactly the same if played two times in a row.
(In this cases often the second stimulus is ranked higher and therefore i´d think janneman asked for that).
While in this DBT every sample was played for 1 minute and the first 10 seconds were repeated before the switch, i thought that might guard (at least to a certain degree) against this "the last stimulus is the most important" fact and as said above the results didn´t show this preference.
But anyway among the strong points of this attempt was that it avoided the "difficult to detect sameness" problem by choosing a paired preference test, and that negative controls were included.
The protocol needs some refinement; to ensure the "double blind" the switching scheme must changed randomly between the runs and the switching for the negative control must be handled inside the preamp (or switching box) to keep the operator "blinded" .
For the test of a single participants, it is a bit different as it could rely on a consistent preference for one of the DUTs.
Wishes
Positive things were definitely that he did preliminary tests and could therefore refine his test protocol, and that he included a negative control; he even included a second one (swapped the cd players in run b) but at that point unfortunately he tried too much as he included a special "tuned" cd for the more expensive cable.
The inclusion of an additional variable at that point would/could superimpose one of the other effects.
The objective of his test (hypothese no. 1) was to show that the better (and more expensive) interconnect would be favoured by the participants.
The test failed in this regard and that might be the reason why it wasn´t spreaded all over the world. 🙂
Due to this objective it was a double blind test as the switching person could not identify which cable was connected to one of the players.
As SY pointed out the negative control trial (no. 3) wasn´t double blind anymore, as the switch was only pretended and therefore the same cable was played twice.
From the result of the test overall it must be concluded that a difference was detected, but the reason is not clear.
An additional concern would be that, that wrt to only a difference, the test would be no longer DBT.
OTOH if you study the results for each trial, they were not consistent in a way that made an unintentional influence by the switching person probable.
The unintentional influence is something important to keep in mind as they could be dangerous.
(Of course intentional too, but if we´d assume that, then it would be much easier to fake just the results, and therefore we would need a much higher level of effort and security to guard against this)
Janneman once asked if it was mainly the version "b" in each trial that was preferred but that wasn´t the case.
There was in any case an inverted result between the two runs, and no explanation exists for this fact.
In the earlier discussion in a german forum i mentioned that i often found with participants that it took quite a long time until they thought the same piece of music sounds exactly the same if played two times in a row.
(In this cases often the second stimulus is ranked higher and therefore i´d think janneman asked for that).
While in this DBT every sample was played for 1 minute and the first 10 seconds were repeated before the switch, i thought that might guard (at least to a certain degree) against this "the last stimulus is the most important" fact and as said above the results didn´t show this preference.
But anyway among the strong points of this attempt was that it avoided the "difficult to detect sameness" problem by choosing a paired preference test, and that negative controls were included.
The protocol needs some refinement; to ensure the "double blind" the switching scheme must changed randomly between the runs and the switching for the negative control must be handled inside the preamp (or switching box) to keep the operator "blinded" .
For the test of a single participants, it is a bit different as it could rely on a consistent preference for one of the DUTs.
Wishes
I totally agree, first i don´t expect that any new phenomen is needed to explain a detected (if so) audible difference between cables. I think it´s just a matter of better hearing abilities than normal text book hearing thresholds would predict.
Of course manufacturing of small runs are more expensive, careful soldering with high quality connectors and the "product overhead" in general are more expensive if done by small companies.
But beside that there is simply no justification for the extreme prices called other than obviously some people are willing to pay.
Just to mention that not too many studies on cables were done; it is more like "a couple" than "many" and yes most were not on par wrt to methodology; see for example our discussion on Sturm´s dbt on cables.
I agree that this sounds reasonable, but would remind to the viscoglab examples on perception tests. Which of these not detected differences would we call unimportant?
BTW, as posted before i have conducted single and double blind tests with ~120 participants during the last twenty years and from firsthand experience i know that most do have big difficulties to detect even big difference if not used to blind testing.
(That´s why i recommended to boconnor to do a blind test for the difference between an electrostat and a horn; while he obviously thinks the difference would be easy to detect i´d bet on the contrary, but you only believe something like that if you had tried it- and no the difference isn´t so subtile that it is not important 🙂 )
Just in analogy to the perception tests at viscoglab . Who would think that he wouldsn´t not percept what is happening if asked before?
And of course the not detected differences were not small, but the test itself was enough to narrow the attention in a way they didn´t matter anymore.
Something very similar happens during a blind test of audio stuff. If you´re not used to this situation you´ll run into problems, and it doesn´t really make a difference if you were hearing before under other conditions.
BTW, this fact "reduction of attention" is well known.
That is the reason why the experimentator _must_ show that the participants could detect something under test conditions, otherwise nobody knows what amount of a difference would have been detectable or not.
It just means that the difference were above the known hearing thresholds confirmed earlier by double blind tests. 🙂
Did i say so? 🙂
No, i just said it is a damnation of a certain test protocol, especially if the participants were not trained.
I mean it´s just the way knowledge improves; use the results of a study, modify something and see what will happen.
Absolutely right, it is possible what John Dunlavy did, but should we surprised by that experiment?
I mean we all knew already that every magician is able to let us see things, we knew from viscoglab examples, that experimentators were able to let us not see things; we knew that we even smell things in the way that somebody told us why on earth should we be surprised that the same happens with our hearing sense?
Just throw the same/different part out; make a paired preference test instead, but in any case do some training with you listener(s) and include a positive control to proof that they detect something under the specific test conditions. 🙂
Wishes
OK. It was something I noted at the ETI shootout which also was paired DBT. The first 8 or 10 runs all came out preferred B. When somewhen wondered about that aloud, the next was preferred A. No proof of anything, just interesting 😉
Jakob what do you mean by this? Inverted wrt the expected outcome?
jd
Can happen and therefore presentation order and forced choice answers must be selected quite carefully.
Sorry, was written very misleading.
The results of run "A" were only inverted for one trial (means for one music sample) in run "B" .
Inverted as reported by Olaf Sturm means, that for this trail in run "B" the other cables was favoured compared to run "A" .
If you leave the cable aside, there were two other explanation for the results possible; first, there was a difference in the cd-players and second, for every music sample exists a preference for the first or the second play. And, of course, for the negative control music sample no preference exists.
None of the three explanations (cables, cd - players, music sample "rerun preference" ) solves the mystery inversion in one trial.
Which one might be the right explanation? If you use occam´s razor it would prefer the cables or the cd - players, but it is a bit dissatisfying to have to rely on occam after such an effort. 🙂
The music sample "rerun preference" certainly deserves some consideration as it could be (if it exists) a problem in general for every test protocol.
(did i already underline the importance of training somewhere? 🙂 )
Wishes
Last edited:
==========================================================
Hello Terry!
1) Yes you're 100% correct I'm happy to do a DBT. I do however have some stipulations about the DBT I'll partake in.
a) The changing of wires MUST be done manuelly, so no ABX boxes allowed ---{This of course requires some additional protocols be met as well
b) I MUST either be or allowed to become, intimately familiar with the audio system and the room it will be used in ---{This is why I usually suggest the usage of my system. It's not because I believe my system is the best system to use but, rather it's because I have lived with this audio system for 5 years in the room it's in. Thus it's very easy for me to recognize when and sonic changes occur}
c) If a different audio system in a different room is to be used and stipulation #2 above has been satisfied then I MUST be allowed the time to determine I can detect differences when wires are changed in sighted listening conditions before the DBT is to be done ---{This is done to satisfy my belief that this system, in this room, is articulate enough to allow me to detect when wires are changed. Once again this is why I suggest using my system. It's already satisfied stipulations a & b.}
d) There could possibly be other stipulations I'd require be done "if" the DBT was done on another system in a different room. However for the life of me I cannot think of what they'd be at this time.
==========================================================
2) You're 100% correct that AJinFLA is not welcome in my home. This animosity started on Audio Asylum when I discovered AJinFLA lived about 1.5 hrs away from me. I invited AJ over to my home and he threw my invitation in my face. He berated me and dispargaged my equipment. Even though he admitted he never heard any of my components AJinFLA called my $13K Mastersound Reference 845 amp a tone control and told me my $5K speakers were only good enough to be used as computer speakers! At that time I owned Aliante Pininfarina's as seen here: ALIANTE - Audiophile speaker systems - High fidelity loudspeakers - Sistemi di altoparlanti hi-end - HiFi Lautsprecher - Diffusori acustici stereo old AJinFLA claimed he knew he wouldn't like what he'd hear so coming to my house would just be a waste of his time.
Needless to say I wasn't happy with how he responded and asked if him if he'd be that nasty to my face. AJinFLA then lied to the Audio Asylum moderators and told them I threatened his life! When he provided them with a copy of what I said, the moderators agreed with me that there was no threat, either veiled, implied or outright stated. AJinFLA wasn't happy with their decision so he got nastier and nastier to me and started attacking anything & everything I'd post on A.A. This all ended when AJinFLA got so nasty he made sexual comments about my wife and the Nelson Pass El Pipo subwoofer. I'm jut hoping the moderators here will keep him in line.
3) I delighted to hear you don't have a problem with a person using whatever cable they want!
3) Terry I'd like you to understand that although I believe wires can and often do, sound different ---{I don't claim to understand why that is. I have some beliefs on this issue but, my beliefs don't really matter}--- I've never claimed others need to use better wires. What I've suggested is people try different wires and listen for themselves. If they don't hear a sonic difference then they shouldn't use different wires but, if they do hear a sonic difference and they believe it is an improvement, they should then decide for themself if that sonic improvement is worth what the wires cost, period. Each person has to make that decision for themself.
4) Actually I don't understand how anyone can believe all wires ---{this includes zipcord}--- not just more expensive audio wires, don't influence the sound of their systems to some extent. What we should be looking for is the wire that gets out of the way and influences the sound of our systems the least! Just because people have been using zipcord for years that doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as being that wire! People forget the reason zipcord was used for years isn't because zipcord was believed to qualify as the wire that influenced the sound of their systems the least, but rather because it was really the only wire available that appeared to serve that purpose!
5) I'd be delighted if SY or some others here wanted to come to my home. Even if it was just to stop, say hello and listen to some tunes. I love meeting new audiophiles/music-lovers and believing wires influence the sound of their systems or whether or not they prefer tube amps doesn't matter to me one iota! Of course SY and others can come over to do a DBT on wires as well.
Wishing you the best, most enjoyable experience you can have with your audio system.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Tom you do get rather emotional about your beloved stereo equipment. I wonder if that strong emotional reaction to such inanimate objects has anything to do with why you can hear wires?
Btw, why did you feel it absolutely necessary to include the price tags? What is the significance of the component prices?
I case you haven't noticed, the thread will be closed at post 10,000, so you are safe with your claimed beliefs, since it's improbable that a DBT at your home will occur before then, by SY, Key or otherwise. Apparently no other cable/wire threads or mention will be allow subsequently.
Well, I acquired that Holly Cole CD and must say the SQ is excellent, whatever they used in the studio. Perhaps we can use this as one of the reference discs in any cable DBT? It's now part of the Blue Note collection (Ironically, I think TG1954's CD player has something to do with Blue Note, so I would guess their quality recordings are audiophile approved).
When listening to these tracks, what exactly should one be paying attention to for hearing "good" vs "bad" wires/cables?
cheers,
AJ
AJ as these were your words I was only repeating, "if" there's any emotion attached to them it comes from you, not me! Since you asked I didn't feel it was absolutely necessary to include the price tags, I simply did so. I do however, appreciate your proving my previous statement about your having to attack or question virtually everything I post, was true. Your nasty dispostion towards me & your innate need to attack all I post is revealed here in your comments about the price of my audio components. Why do you care why I listed the price of my components and who ---{besides YOU}--- said there was any significance or purpose of doing it? Thankfully you stopped short of making more sexual comments about my wife and the El Pipo subwoofer like you did on Audio Asylum!
AJinFLA said:
Actually AJ, too bad but, this attempt to belittle me & discredit my genuine offer of doing a DBT at my home, by claiming I'm safe at doing it because this thread is so near it's 10,000 closing point, is actually once again showing your continued, sick, need to discredit almost everything I post. As I've told your numerous times on Audio Asylum you really should ask questions BEFORE attempting to discredit my posts. It will save you a lot of humiliation. What you apparently don't know but, SY & a few others here well know, is I made an offer of having a DBT done at my home well before this thread was near it's 10,000 point of closing! So I wasn't attempting to play it safe. Besides my offer remains open even after this thread is closed. SY and others here, unlike you, are welcome to visit my home to either just say hi and listen to some tunes or do a DBT anytime they're near Orlando, Fla. In fact here's my phone # to help them do so: (407) 207-4364
AJinFLA said:
For those like AJinFLA who don't know this. My Stibbert CD player was indeed made by the then named Bluenote Audio company of Italy. Blue Note the record company asked Bluenote Audio to stop using the name Bluenote and they did. Bluenote Audio of Italy is now known as Goldenote Audio. Goldenote makes outstanding audio components of which the CDP Stibbert is only one. It's convenient AJinFLA brought this topic up because it provides me with the opportunity to tell you all Goldenote offered me a chance to upgrade my 5 year old solid-state Bluenote Stibbert for their new 2009 vastly upgraded & tubed Goldenote Stibbert for the exchange of the units and a very modest sum of $$$$. Goldenote. The sound beyond My new CDP was shipped from Italy on Saturday 12/19/09 Hopefully I'll be receiving it later this week or early next week! Gratefully they didn't require I return the old unit before receiving the new one, so the tunes continue here at the homestead.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Gentlemen,Please return to the topic at hand. Time is running out for you and the others to offer your opinion on this highly controversial and contentious issue. Don't miss out!
Blue Note recordings have always been approved by music lovers not only "audiophiles"(the way you mean it).Such recordings prove also that Blue Note people are true music lovers and real audiophiles.
When you have the opportunity to have recordings like these,and really interrested to hear differences even between cables,then you owe it to youself to take advantage of such recordings and musicality and give youself a test.I'm sure your findings will be very interresting and enlightening to all of us.
...and I wear Elle McPherson's PERSONAL underwear to enhance my, ahem, features. So There!
They must be working, I get LOTS of comments...
happiness is like many things a state of mind - so yes, apart from when they ride up a bit, I'm entirely happy!
On leave from work at the moment for a Christmas of family, sun (sorry about your weather those in the Eastern USA, but its looking like a 24 degree Celsius day for us on the 25th) so a good frame of mind is easy to achieve, speaker cables and undergarments notwithstanding.
And no, I am not open to a DBT on Elle's latest offerings.
Best wishes to you for your health JC - hope the eye thing is all sorted by now.
On leave from work at the moment for a Christmas of family, sun (sorry about your weather those in the Eastern USA, but its looking like a 24 degree Celsius day for us on the 25th) so a good frame of mind is easy to achieve, speaker cables and undergarments notwithstanding.
And no, I am not open to a DBT on Elle's latest offerings.
Best wishes to you for your health JC - hope the eye thing is all sorted by now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.