I hate to say this because it may sound insulting, but...
Some of us wonder if that someone only believes that they hear a difference. We wonder if there really is no audible difference. If that speculation is correct, then the difference he believes he hears is a result of psych, placebo effect, or whatever.
I think that is the reason that some want to actually do a blind study. So that the hearers of the difference can prove that there is a difference. Maybe then we doubters will stop bugging them all the time, and join them in discussing why it happens and how to make things better.
So - back to sample size. Could everyone - on both "sides" tell me just how much they expect to hear?
What % of time will you say that the "bad" cables are bad?
What % of time will you say that the "good" cables are bad?
That way we can establish a sample size for this study.
Ophth said:
I hate to say it, but if you substitude a word wonder with believe, you won't be much off the mark either.😉
I agree with that, but OTOH, I can function perfectly well without a proof.
I don't really care if something is proven or not. Proof is only needed by people who are not certain about things. I understand (or rather "feel") very well the world around me and I live in perfect harmony with it😉
I don't really care if something is proven or not. Proof is only needed by people who are not certain about things. I understand (or rather "feel") very well the world around me and I live in perfect harmony with it😉
Just a suggestion...
In order to make this test simpler, and yeild results tht are valid, I believe that a change to the methdology presented so far is needed. First, I would take advantage of system that is alreday accepted as valid by researchers in sufficient trial numbers: ABX. It would be simple to emulate this: Create 30 identical stereo interconnects. Divide this into a subgroup of 10 sets(Of each subgroup 1 is X, 2 is A, 3 is A). The test subject will attempt to identify in each subgroup, whetehr X is the same as A or B. 10 subgroups represents 10 trials. 10 trials is the general accepted minimum number of trials that has a statistically significant value. Each interconnect should have a direction marked. The direction is not true direction, nescarrily, but an established radom direction to test the interconnect established by a random generator or coin tosses, etc., and recorded by the maker of the test samples for later reference when scoring. Ir ealize that this may seem excessive(the number of test samples), but I feel it is important to use an accepted form of protocol. IF, indeed, the cables are cosmetically identical, and no breach of the ID is revealed, and the directon can not be measured, then IMO the compiled test result data should provide very valuable evidence into whether cable directionality is audible.
-ThatGuy
In order to make this test simpler, and yeild results tht are valid, I believe that a change to the methdology presented so far is needed. First, I would take advantage of system that is alreday accepted as valid by researchers in sufficient trial numbers: ABX. It would be simple to emulate this: Create 30 identical stereo interconnects. Divide this into a subgroup of 10 sets(Of each subgroup 1 is X, 2 is A, 3 is A). The test subject will attempt to identify in each subgroup, whetehr X is the same as A or B. 10 subgroups represents 10 trials. 10 trials is the general accepted minimum number of trials that has a statistically significant value. Each interconnect should have a direction marked. The direction is not true direction, nescarrily, but an established radom direction to test the interconnect established by a random generator or coin tosses, etc., and recorded by the maker of the test samples for later reference when scoring. Ir ealize that this may seem excessive(the number of test samples), but I feel it is important to use an accepted form of protocol. IF, indeed, the cables are cosmetically identical, and no breach of the ID is revealed, and the directon can not be measured, then IMO the compiled test result data should provide very valuable evidence into whether cable directionality is audible.
-ThatGuy
What you suggest would be a great way to set up the test.
There's no problem with their study design, though.
They've already established what they're looking for subjectively.
Messed up imaging.
They can do that with just the two pairs of wires.
I would recommend that the coding for each cable pair be hidden. That way each person can do multiple tests. Of course, no one should know if set A or B is correct until the very end. But they should also re-hide the "A" and "B" for each test.
But however the test is set up, first it must be established what % difference in correct "poor image" results between A and B we are looking for.
There's no problem with their study design, though.
They've already established what they're looking for subjectively.
Messed up imaging.
They can do that with just the two pairs of wires.
I would recommend that the coding for each cable pair be hidden. That way each person can do multiple tests. Of course, no one should know if set A or B is correct until the very end. But they should also re-hide the "A" and "B" for each test.
But however the test is set up, first it must be established what % difference in correct "poor image" results between A and B we are looking for.
Proof is only needed by people who are not certain about things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even that. Audio is based on pyschoacoustics which IS scientifically based on human perception.
It amazes me that 'scientists' will believe perefectly in acoustics principles dericvd from human reaction to sine waves (very annoying best of times) and reject theirs and others reactions to music.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even that. Audio is based on pyschoacoustics which IS scientifically based on human perception.
It amazes me that 'scientists' will believe perefectly in acoustics principles dericvd from human reaction to sine waves (very annoying best of times) and reject theirs and others reactions to music.
I seem to have missed those papers where "scientists" reject the use of music signals. Nearly every pub I've seen by people like Greiner, Lipshitz, Vanderkooy, Clark, Toole, et al (the real scientists in audio) use test tones (rarely sine waves) where appropriate and music where appropriate.
fmak said:
Who dat? Don't recall anyone here rejecting the use of music signals. What'd I miss?
se
Still Vapourware ?..........
So far all I hear is mass debating.
Eric - / Losing interest real fast.
So far all I hear is mass debating.
Eric - / Losing interest real fast.
Re: Still Vapourware ?..........
Be patient. I ordered 200 feet of the Vampire magnet wire today. With any luck it'll get here Friday.
se
mrfeedback said:
Be patient. I ordered 200 feet of the Vampire magnet wire today. With any luck it'll get here Friday.
se
Looks like we have a new candidate for the "Most Retarded Thread Ever" award. The thread "power cord break-in or burn-in is there such a thing?" was yesterday's winner but this one takes the cake.
Not Vapourware After All.........
I look forward to sensible testing and results, and sensible discussion.
Provided we do all of this in collaboration correctly we should be able to establish some solid audio rules, and suitable counter measures.
Eric.
Ok, glad to hear so - I did not count on that you should spend $100 or so, so thanks for doing so.Steve Eddy said:
I look forward to sensible testing and results, and sensible discussion.
Provided we do all of this in collaboration correctly we should be able to establish some solid audio rules, and suitable counter measures.
Eric.
Possible "Most Retarded Member Ever".............
Eric.
See the above post - in near future maybe you laugh, maybe we laugh.Solid Snake said:
Eric.
Re: Not Vapourware After All.........
You're welcome, though I didn't spend $100. 200 feet was only $18, or 9 cents a foot. I could have spent $200 and bought a 10 pound spool from Vampire and got it for about 1.5 cents a foot. 🙂
And this is for 99.99997% Ohno Continuous Cast copper wire, not your garden variety 99.95% ETP copper. Kinda makes you wonder about cable pricing. 🙂
Ditto.
Yup. It's just nice to actually be DOING something rather than the usual speculative debates.
Anyway, when I get the wire, I'll braid up the initial sets and pass 'em on to SY for further inspection and he'll pass 'em on to you and Frank.
I'll let you know when I get the wire so you can refresh my memory as to what you want the initial sets to be.
se
mrfeedback said:
You're welcome, though I didn't spend $100. 200 feet was only $18, or 9 cents a foot. I could have spent $200 and bought a 10 pound spool from Vampire and got it for about 1.5 cents a foot. 🙂
And this is for 99.99997% Ohno Continuous Cast copper wire, not your garden variety 99.95% ETP copper. Kinda makes you wonder about cable pricing. 🙂
Ditto.
Yup. It's just nice to actually be DOING something rather than the usual speculative debates.
Anyway, when I get the wire, I'll braid up the initial sets and pass 'em on to SY for further inspection and he'll pass 'em on to you and Frank.
I'll let you know when I get the wire so you can refresh my memory as to what you want the initial sets to be.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.