TG doesn't object to the protocol I proposed. And he has as little experience in blind testing as you do. Difference is that he's open-minded enough to put his beliefs to the test. You're not.
Dave: Superposition.
In the switchbox I used, lo those many years ago when I ran tests on my friends and me to try to prove Lipshitz wrong, the switch was a Cinema Engineering job, better than 99.9% of the source selector switches in high end preamps. If an effect is buried by that, it's a pretty wimpy effect.
In the switchbox I used, lo those many years ago when I ran tests on my friends and me to try to prove Lipshitz wrong, the switch was a Cinema Engineering job, better than 99.9% of the source selector switches in high end preamps. If an effect is buried by that, it's a pretty wimpy effect.
Hello Jacob2.
This is how the test was performed that SY's speaking of...
=========================================================================
I'd like to also mention these tests were originally done because I didn't believes wires could possibly "sound" different or cause a system to sound different. Thus my expectations were not to hear any differences. I setup a day on the weekend were two friends could help assist me with the test. One friend switched the wires and remained unseen during the entire test. The other friend sat behind me and didn't speak to me. His presence was required to verify I didn't get up and look at the wires and to make sure the wires were properly hidden at all times. This is how the test was done.
a) The interconnects were readily available from well known & respected audio cable manufacturers:
1) copper wire (Kimber PBJ)
2) silver-plated copper wire (Nordost Blue Heaven)
3) silver wire (Kimber KCAG)
4) gold-plated gold/silver/copper alloy wire (I apologise but, I cannot recall who made this IC. IIRC it was Siltech. I also cannot remember if the wire was solid gold, gold-plated-silver or gold-plated gold/silver/copper alloy wire. What I do remember is it was used because it contained gold in the wires)
b) No SPL meters were used for few reasons.
1) There was no way we were going to spend the time and effort with adding additional components be they R, L, C, equalizers etc. to match SPLs of all frequecies between different ICs. It's my contention that "if" an IC is not intentionally or specifically made to have gross frequency aberrations then it is a properly made IC.
2) It was also felt that any additional components used to match SPLs would only complicate the tests with the addition of these other components which could in themselves be what makes the wires sound different in the end.
3) I believe ---{I have no proof}--- people have a specific volume level they inherently enjoy listening at & they'll inherently listen at the level or very close to it, most times. I also don't believe listening SPL differences matter, provided one always turns the volume to it's minimum level and shuts the system off before switching wires, powers the system up and then slowly raises the volume until it's at the inherent enjoyable listening level the person being tested enjoys listens at. That said, the following was done.
3a) The same song, Steely Dan's Aja, was always used. I find this song to be invaluable, especially if I'm attempting to discriminate between two ICs I might be having difficulty with. When this happens I'll listen specifically to when the drummer stops his solo and hits his drumsticks together (4:56-4:57) into the song. I've found transients are often where ICs sound uniquely different and the striking of these drumsticks often helps me to deteremine if the IC has been changed or not!
3b) When I was satisfied I could or couldn't hear a difference, I'd write down my decision A or B. Then volume was brought to as low as possible via the volume control on the component & then the component was switched off. At that point I'd walk upstairs and one friend who sat behind me during the test would follow me upstairs into the living room. At this point this friend and I could talk about anything but the test or audio.
3c) The other friend who was sitting outside in the back yard waited for 30 secs after he heard silence ---{as a result of #3b above being completed}--- He'd then enter the basement/audio room from the outside hatchway. At that point the IC being used could be changed to another different IC or it could removed and reinserted. It was required that the IC be removed from the system EVERYTIME! This was done in an effort to keep the time between IC changes more consistant and not possibly albeit subtely provide me with a clue having the change done to quickly. After the change was made this friend returned outside via the outside hatchway door.
3d) When I'd hear the hatchway door shut the friend who monitored my actions and I would go back downstairs, power the system up and slowly raise the volume until the sound level was again at what I previously refered to as the inherent enjoyable listening level. and we'd be back at step # 3b again. Steps # 3b - 3d were repeated until the test was completed.
=========================================================================
Ok Sy let me try and clarify further how the events transpired. I believe the first clarification and perhaps most important one is to infrom you I wasn't attempting ---{at least in this test}--- to identify the cable as the Kimber or Siltech or Nordost etc. Instead I was attempting to identify if the cables sounded different or not! So I only had to know if there was a change or if the cables were the same.
My friend had to use the Kimber PBJ in the first set of tests for the reasons previously given. He was then free to select any of the remaining 3 different ICs ---{Kimber KCAG, Nordost Blue Heaven or Siltech}--- to use with the Kimber PBJ. In the example I used above he selected the Siltech as the second IC. That said I had no idea if the first of the 5 listening tests, per session would be the PBJ or the Siltech. Now sticking with the previous example I used:
1 Kimber 1 X
2 Kimber 2 Same
3 Siltech 3 Change
4 Kimber 4 Change
5 Siltech 5 Change
If I stated #2 was the same IC as #1 ---{which in this example I precisely what I did}--- that would mean I heard the same sonic attributes in IC #2 that I heard in IC #1. Now perhaps my way of thinking is flawed in this regard but, to me if after listening to IC #2, I was able to deteremine correctly that it was the same IC as IC #1, then that means I correctly identified the sonic signature of the IC both times.
However if my friend had chosen to use the Siltech first our example would now look like this:
1 Siltech 1 X
2 Kimber 2 Same (wrong)
3 Siltech 3 Change
4 Kimber 4 Change
5 Siltech 5 Change
In this case if after listening to IC #2, I identified incorrectly that it was the same IC as IC #1, then that means I wasn't able to correctly identify the sonic signature of either of the two differing ICs! That's why I said "Thus if #2 was correct on my paper #1 was automatically correct! However if #2 was wrong, then #1 was also wrong and I'd already have 2 out of 5 incorrect!"
Please remember I'm just an audiophile/music lover who was/is attempting to discover the truth about wires and whether or not they have sonic signatures or not! I'm not a mathematician nor do I work with statistics. So it's quite possible my logic is incorrect about my method of scoring above.
After starting the test with my knowing the PBJ was included in the first round of 5 separate listening sessions. My friend was free to choose any of other remaining ICs to compare against the PBG but, once chosen that IC or the PBJ had to in the system for all of the 5 tests in that session. At this point the presentation had no order determined ahead of time, my friend could have used any combination of PBJ and whatever other IC he chose. Fact is he could have kept the same IC in for all 5 tests if he so chose to!
Unbeknownst to me at the time, my friend who did the manuel switching decided to always bring one of the two ICs used in the previous listening sessions into the next round of 5 separate listening sessions. Sticking with our previous example that would mean after the PBJ/Siltech tests were completed the next round would include either the PBJ or the Siltech to be compared against either the Kimber KCAG or the Nordost Blue Heaven.
==========================================================
As you can hopefully now see my "DBT" didn't follow SY's proposed protocols "EXACTLY" in anyway, except the wires being manuelly switched.
If I ever revealed just what brought this "DBT" into existance, you all would be very shocked, amazed and I'm sure highly amused.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Last edited:
The blind tests that I did with my friends(5 so far)were the same as the protocol that you as an "expert" suggested,months before you finally decided to abandon the switching box😀
I have accepted to put my beliefs to the test,many months before TG did,but I was told I live very far,don't you remember this?😕
I know TG is open-minded.What you seem to fail to understand is that his open-mindness does not remind yours.Just remember your thoughts about switching boxes,and your medium abilities that revealed to you that I and my friends were "peeking".I do not need any observation from SY or any other to be honest you know.
Finally,I don't mind if I have little experience in blind tests.I usually don't use them to enjoy music.If however I judge from the "protocol" you have proposed to TG,I am not very far.In fact I can say,you are very close😀
Keep the discussion tones low.We all know you are good.But there are millions on this planet,you are not alone.Don't count me in the good ones if that makes you happier.
EDIT:The five tests I mentioned above were done this year.
Last edited:
And you leaving the room between presentations, the most recent issue that Jakob has grasped onto.
No, you need that in order for the test to be taken seriously, to have accurate and objective reportage of the events, and to prevent you from inadvertently breaking the blind protocols. That last stunningly easy to do when you're being casual with like-minded buddies, and selective memory will do the rest.
There was an "observer" in the room if you really want to know.What we cared was that the tests were valid for us.We did them and will do some more for ouselves,no one else.For us they are very serious.In one of them,I have not only had a very high score,but also identified and prefered my interconnect to another one costing at least twice as much.Mind you after I have seen the results,I was nod sad at all that I prefered my cheaper interconnect.I just mentioned about our tests at least once in the past(maybe in another thread),because I was asked,I wasn't in any way advertising anything.
It won't matter folks. Until, you meet the Lipshitz criteria,(something sort of vague, at least to me), you will never be recognized as making a scientifically correct test.
What makes you think that me or my "like-minded" buddies have not more serious things to do than waste our time and ** friends at the forum?Or,what makes you think that we are earning easy-money to spend on cables because stereophile or any other magazine says so?Do you think we don't know what is happening with many magazines?
Well,sorry if I disapoint you SY,we are not that.........bad.
EDIT:Not the same "buddies"were with me in all tests.In fact in two of them there were two,excellent EE's(even by your standards if you knew them),one of them a trully graced tube amp designer.
Last edited:
But seriously, folks
All of these subjective results seem numbingly anecdotal until a valid test protocol is followed. Some seem to believe that standard experimental designs (as used in the semiconductor industry, NASA, etc., you know, those who make the active and passive devices seemingly accepted w/o question) are of no value, dismissing them outright as "flawed".
I guess references like this:
Amazon.com: Practical Experiment Designs: for Engineers and Scientists (9780471390541): William J. Diamond: Books
are meaningless, since the "believers" dismiss all non-biased testing. Too bad, you should refuse to buy computers, stereos, etc. since their pieces/parts were all designed (at least most of the successful ones) using such advanced methods...
We should be discussing alpha and beta error, confidence intervals, confounded trial design criteria, etc.... but only SY seems to know anything about these (as demonstrated here, at least)
IF the testing by TBG/SY comes to pass, maybe something useful out of 10,000+ posts will occur...I won't be holding my breath...😀
All of these subjective results seem numbingly anecdotal until a valid test protocol is followed. Some seem to believe that standard experimental designs (as used in the semiconductor industry, NASA, etc., you know, those who make the active and passive devices seemingly accepted w/o question) are of no value, dismissing them outright as "flawed".
I guess references like this:
Amazon.com: Practical Experiment Designs: for Engineers and Scientists (9780471390541): William J. Diamond: Books
are meaningless, since the "believers" dismiss all non-biased testing. Too bad, you should refuse to buy computers, stereos, etc. since their pieces/parts were all designed (at least most of the successful ones) using such advanced methods...
We should be discussing alpha and beta error, confidence intervals, confounded trial design criteria, etc.... but only SY seems to know anything about these (as demonstrated here, at least)
IF the testing by TBG/SY comes to pass, maybe something useful out of 10,000+ posts will occur...I won't be holding my breath...😀
GIGO? A quick scan of the first 50 pages of that title on Google Books suggests its focus is data analysis. Grind all the numbers you want, if the acquisition process is flawed the ony thing you'll get from it is comfort.
Cite cable tests you feel fully meet proper criteria. Why is it those incessantly banging the objectivity shoe on the podium never step up to the plate when asked for the most trivial of scientific supporting evidence: measurements vs. audibility thresholds or proper citations? Is a 30+ year old audio club demo the best you have?
Last edited:
say what?
Since you quoted my post, what makes you think I don't? Your post seems to imply I don't listen to music.... far from true... I just don't obsess about minutiae and unproven subjective drivel...😱
Since you quoted my post, what makes you think I don't? Your post seems to imply I don't listen to music.... far from true... I just don't obsess about minutiae and unproven subjective drivel...😱
What???- Status
- Not open for further replies.