Steve Eddy said:
I was wondering how long it was going to take for the shipping costs to come up 🙂
The suggestion was simply from the scientific point of view, although if breaking in is a factor then it was fundamentally flawed I guess (unless both parties got high success rates on the first set but lower on the second.......therefore maybe demonstrating the effect of breaking in......)
The other thing that you really need is a control set, where you have someone who tests a set of cables that have no reversals at all. Actually I guess if you are doing 5 sets then one of the 5 sets can be a control set.
Regards,
Tony.
Interesting thread:
Who believes in this:
Mr Feedback, SE, ?
Which cables are affected by this? Even those from a vinyl player?
What about in the recording studio? Can you hear on a recordning that some cables have been connected wrong?
Why isn't Fred commenting this?
Who believes in this:
Mr Feedback, SE, ?
Which cables are affected by this? Even those from a vinyl player?
What about in the recording studio? Can you hear on a recordning that some cables have been connected wrong?
Why isn't Fred commenting this?
Hi,
Will do.
Just a thought, before we decide anything on the number of send and return postal operations, why not see first if the initial test results are worth investigating further?
Cheers, 😉
Will do.
Just a thought, before we decide anything on the number of send and return postal operations, why not see first if the initial test results are worth investigating further?
Cheers, 😉
peranders said:
Believes in what? Wire directionality? I haven't any particular belief one way or the other. I haven't seen any convincing arguments as to why a length of wire should have any particular directionality and if it does that it's actually audible.
But a lack of a convincing argument doesn't establish that there's nothing to it any more than emtply claims and anecdotes establishes that there is.
I keep an open mind and if there is something to it, I think it's worthy of trying to establish it beyond empty claims and anecdotes. As I've said before, if there is something to it, it would be, to say the least, profound.
And I applaud Eric and Frank for their willingness to participate in that endeavor. We don't always get along, but they've volunteered to meet the challenge and despite our history, I can't help but respect them for it.
se
Rob M said:
Yeah. Seems to me that the control here is the random coding of the pairs.
This isn't quite like testing some new medicine where you have one group that receives the actual medicine and the control group receives the placebo.
se
Christer said:
Hehehe.
Actually, aren't we ultimately testing to see if there is a placebo of sorts? In other words, what Eric and Frank are perceiving may or may not be due to the cable itself. Which means that it's possible that their perceptions may be due to something similar to a placebo effect. If the tests come out positive, then we can rule this out.
se
I don't think we can have a placebo here, unless there are
cables that Frank and Eric accept as non-directed. Then we
could sneak in such cables. On the other hand, placebos and
real stuff are supposed to be given to separate groups of
people, so no, I don't think that is a concept that applies here.
cables that Frank and Eric accept as non-directed. Then we
could sneak in such cables. On the other hand, placebos and
real stuff are supposed to be given to separate groups of
people, so no, I don't think that is a concept that applies here.
Steve Eddy said:
Well that was kind of the point. The control set is there to make sure that any observed effects are due to the effects you are trying to prove and not just random. You guys have been saying you want to make it as scientific as possible, and the scientific method says you should have a control set.......... (at least as far as I remember it does).
You are right about the control set usually being a separate party all together (which is why I said someone). I guess the best thing to do is not say either way whether you are going to include a control set, just knowing that there may or may not be a set that is not reversed is enough IMO to amplify any psycological effects, asuming there are any.
Regards,
Tony.
wintermute said:
The control is already built into the test.
They'll each get initially 20 pairs of wires. Some pairs will be wired with each cable of the pair wired in the same direction. Other pairs will be wired with one wired one direction and the other wired in the opposite direction. Which are wired which way will be determined by random process.
So the random element is already there.
The listeners will try each pair and determine whether they're wired the same (i.e. no image shifting) or if they're wired oppositely (i.e. image shifting). If there is a consistent audible effect, then their number of correct identifications should be greater than what would be expected had they simply guessed.
So I'm really not sure just what role you're expecting the control set to play here.
Again, the control is built into the test by way of the randomness of how the pairs will be configured. In other words, the listeners are presented with a random element and their job is to turn that randomness into non-randomness by way of correct identification.
We're not testing across a population group here. That was the problem with Lampen's test. We're testing individuals here. And I fail to see how this control set would be worked in and what it would control for that's not already being controlled for.
Perhaps a more detailed explanation would help. Step through the process so I can get a better idea of what you're trying to get across.
se
Hi,
How do these combinations of a pair of wires add up to 20 pair?
I mean you're going to drive us completely bananas testing 20 pairs....
Or maybe that's the hidden agenda of this test; Eric and Frank in the asylum so you have all the power, Dr.Evil??
Tada,😀
How do these combinations of a pair of wires add up to 20 pair?
I mean you're going to drive us completely bananas testing 20 pairs....
Or maybe that's the hidden agenda of this test; Eric and Frank in the asylum so you have all the power, Dr.Evil??
Tada,😀
fdegrove said:
Um, well, yes. There will be 20 pairs, each made up of a left channel cable and a right channel cable. And ideally, it would be 20 pairs just to start. I'd like to do 5 trials of 20 pair each.
Again, establishing audibility is ultimately a matter of statistics. Just using a few pair, even if they were all correctly identified wouldn't establish anything of any significance.
No guts no glory. 🙂
se
Hi,
True, very true...but 20 airs? Oh, well it's your wire...😉
Which begs the question, are you going to use a wire of which the manufacturer claims it's directional?
Certainly not Jam, he sure knows how to tell a good circuit from a placebo one...
Cheers,😉
True, very true...but 20 airs? Oh, well it's your wire...😉
Which begs the question, are you going to use a wire of which the manufacturer claims it's directional?
Certainly not Jam, he sure knows how to tell a good circuit from a placebo one...
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:Certainly not Jam, he sure knows how to tell a good circuit from a placebo one...
Hm, I have read the results of a few studies of new medicines,
and although I might have misinterpreted it, not being a
physician, there was at least one case where what would
reasonably be considered to be an effect of the drug was
labelled as a side effect. Furhter more, a higher percentage
of the placebo group experienced this (side)effect. Puzzles
me, has puzzled a few physicians I have mentione it to also.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.