Dude, if you really can do it, I'LL write your accolades for all to hear. I'd also publicly eat crow, as I would have to with what I've said here. Imagine the press it will get if it's the real deal.Pity I can't write.
Can I have dibs on exclusive "Audio - Biography" rights?? We'll make a fortune!
X 3
There is no need however, this is how it needs to be done. It's basic Scientific Method, honed over the centuries with all manner of experiments.
That's why I suggested that one new and one burned-in set of 'good' quality cables are send to me first for testing.
I don't think I will get 10 sets of silver 'Legend' cables to make the test easier.
Eh?
The only difference is that the cable will either be burned in or it won't.
A burned in cable won't look any different, feel any different, smell any different, taste any different, or measure any different.
se
Would you think the test failed if he Andre or anyone else had a success rate of only 80%? I think not. In fact if Andre scores better than random choice it is already a significant result.
I would be happiest if Andre would perform the test as follows:
1) cover all number labels of the X cables
2) randomly choose one of X cables and install it in his system, listen to it and classify it as "B" for burned-in or "N" otherwise
3) uncover the cable lable and note down its classification
4) repeat point 1) to 3) many times
This way we could have enough samples to do a bit of statistical analysis.
SY, what do you think?
iko: That's more complicated and restrictive than it needs to be. He's got a burned-in and not-burned-in cable for a reference. He determines which of the coded cables are burned-in and which are not-burned-in. He can do that any way he likes- even measurement!
A significant result would be 0.05 or smaller (i.e., 95% probability that the identification is not due to chance).
A significant result would be 0.05 or smaller (i.e., 95% probability that the identification is not due to chance).
Last edited:
ISTM you are causing great confusion by talking about something other than the proposed test which is to supply a bunch of identical cables, all marked, some "broken in" some not. All testee has to do is sort them into the correct groups.
Level matching, and all the other double blind stuff is NOT necessary as already well stated! Nor does anyone else need to be there.
Please read the whole thread again!
Why must one identify "burned in" versus "not burned in"? How about just taking the group of 10 cables and after listening, putting them into two piles. One pile sounds the same, the other pile is different. I don't care if he can tell me which pile is burned in or not; the fact that he could identify differences is all that really matters.
These debates are getting so old to me it's worth it to invest a little money. I'd dump $10 into a kitty that the golden ears can take for themselves if they are willing to perform the test (don't even have to pass the test, just perform it). Get enough people to agree, there is a bank of cash waiting for the ones willing to put their claims to the test. At least that way the forum will not be cluttered with this banter; best $10 you can spend. However, based on the avoidance I see so far, the test will never be performed.
These debates are getting so old to me it's worth it to invest a little money. I'd dump $10 into a kitty that the golden ears can take for themselves if they are willing to perform the test (don't even have to pass the test, just perform it). Get enough people to agree, there is a bank of cash waiting for the ones willing to put their claims to the test. At least that way the forum will not be cluttered with this banter; best $10 you can spend. However, based on the avoidance I see so far, the test will never be performed.
Agreed, though that changes the handling of the statistics, and may require a slightly larger sample size (I haven't put the numbers in a table yet).
Edmond, behave will you?
Seriously, I'm fine with you going after those whom makes extraordinary claims, and won't step up to the plate and prove their claims, BUT Andre actually has taken the challenge, and that deserves respect.
After he has performed the test, there are two options, which both will make a lot of people eat their words.
Now if some don't have the balls to admit they were proven wrong, again fine by me, they're free prey.
Magura
Seriously, I'm fine with you going after those whom makes extraordinary claims, and won't step up to the plate and prove their claims, BUT Andre actually has taken the challenge, and that deserves respect.
After he has performed the test, there are two options, which both will make a lot of people eat their words.
Now if some don't have the balls to admit they were proven wrong, again fine by me, they're free prey.
Magura
The rules
OK, just to end confusion and wild goose chase posts, let set down the rules.
Rules of the cable burn-in blind test
That should pretty much cover it. Any mistakes, omissions?
OK, just to end confusion and wild goose chase posts, let set down the rules.
Rules of the cable burn-in blind test
- 12 identical cables are obtained. Cable should be chosen by "Listener" (Andre in this case) to be good for test.
- Burn-in procedure is agreed on before test.
- 2 cables are marked. Cable A and cable B. Cable B is subjected to burn-in.
- Cables A & B are sent to Listener clearly identified as new and burned-in
- Listener tests to determine if he can hear or measure the difference.
- If Listener is satisfied he can tell the difference, test will proceed.
- Remaining 10 cables are marked. (A,B,C, etc, or 1,2,3, etc.)
- Random key is generated for cables to be burned in or not. Burn-in completed on those randomly chosen.
- Key of cables sent to neutral 3rd party or parties.
- Set of 10 cables sent to Listener.
- Listener sorts cables into 2 groups - New and Burned-in.
- Listener reports which cables are which.
- Results are checked against key.
That should pretty much cover it. Any mistakes, omissions?
Not good. After intensive listening, the new cable gets burned-in and any difference between the two cables will objectively vanish
Last edited:
Can't hear you. The Doppler shift from your retreat dropped your vocals to the infrasonic range.
Not good. After intensive listening, the new cable gets burned-in and any difference between the two cables will objectively vanish
That's why I've made the point several times that it needs to be a cable which is agreed (by the test subject) to have a long break-in time.
I probably wouldn't prepare all 12 until the listener agrees that he hears a difference between A and B.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.