Panicos K said:
Actually it won't, because you will state whether you hear it or not. You are being tested for your ability to detect which cable is which. The double blind protocol means that even the group running the test doesn't know which is which.
planet10 said:
This is a bit of a stretch.
planet10 said:
Over complicating the test doesn't make sense. We might as well go right back to testing the cables directly.
This is about the audibility of cables in the repro chain. Either you can hear it, or you can't. It's really just that simple.
Repeatability and sample size can control for Beta
I'm out of town for three days, so I'll be curious to see where this thread leads!
See you next week.
In the meantime, Randi's waiting for some applications!
a million bucks! The odds are way better than the lotto aren't they?
Planet10: Randi might go for the MRI idea, you never know. He has resources and connections to scientists and researchers in this field.
Give it a shot!
See you next week.
In the meantime, Randi's waiting for some applications!
a million bucks! The odds are way better than the lotto aren't they?
Planet10: Randi might go for the MRI idea, you never know. He has resources and connections to scientists and researchers in this field.
Give it a shot!
A common sense assumption macgyver10 but not true. Take my earlier and admittedly ridiculous "phono cartridges over the telephone" example. The noise and resolution floor of the test protocol swamps any delta resulting from phono cartridges. Until it's demonstrated the addition of all those wires and connectors won't swamp the potential cable differences it can't be assumed. To be scientific every possible variable must be removed. Plus there's no reason for such a mess, there are so many much cleaner ways to do this (preamp tape loops for example) that it again casts suspicion on motives or capabilities.
For the record and since I'm being typecast I'm not one who considers cables components in themselves and find the effects subtle at best. My opinion falls more along the line of SY's, just from the other side. Some times differences are really obvious, for example when one version of an amp I built picked up more RF from unshielded twist-pair silver wire than unshielded open 'tape-type' Litz. It hints at a pure LRC reaction in the RF range. I doubt that buys me a million though. As the front end design became cleaner, to the point where unshielded cable no longer generates any audible hiss or RF hash on 98 dB efficient speakers, I currently find less and less to chose between cables. If you read through my other posts objectively you'll see that, far from backtracking, it's consistent with most everything I wrote.
You slay me. Yes, I was in error employing a shorthand that left it as a single run applications, but not all. You caught me. You then incredibly ignore a series of straightforward calculations based on cut-and-dry scientific criteria demonstrating for most home installs a single run of CAT5 is sufficient in terms of damping factor, and therefore what most will draw from that recommendation, and that it's much worse in terms of capacitance than zip.
You already conviced me, you're recommending more. And what do the 100 kHz measurements have to do with audibility, bearing in mind the excess capacitance has plenty to do with amplifier stability? (The lost original point was that Randi accepted a claim CAT5 is the best speaker cable outside his expertise based on its source from an avowed skeptic, one which the very fact that we're technically debating it here demonstrates is far from a given.)
Edit: Ooo-wee, I see the moderator's ready finger on the trigger all over this this thread.
For the record and since I'm being typecast I'm not one who considers cables components in themselves and find the effects subtle at best. My opinion falls more along the line of SY's, just from the other side. Some times differences are really obvious, for example when one version of an amp I built picked up more RF from unshielded twist-pair silver wire than unshielded open 'tape-type' Litz. It hints at a pure LRC reaction in the RF range. I doubt that buys me a million though. As the front end design became cleaner, to the point where unshielded cable no longer generates any audible hiss or RF hash on 98 dB efficient speakers, I currently find less and less to chose between cables. If you read through my other posts objectively you'll see that, far from backtracking, it's consistent with most everything I wrote.
You slay me. Yes, I was in error employing a shorthand that left it as a single run applications, but not all. You caught me. You then incredibly ignore a series of straightforward calculations based on cut-and-dry scientific criteria demonstrating for most home installs a single run of CAT5 is sufficient in terms of damping factor, and therefore what most will draw from that recommendation, and that it's much worse in terms of capacitance than zip.
You already conviced me, you're recommending more. And what do the 100 kHz measurements have to do with audibility, bearing in mind the excess capacitance has plenty to do with amplifier stability? (The lost original point was that Randi accepted a claim CAT5 is the best speaker cable outside his expertise based on its source from an avowed skeptic, one which the very fact that we're technically debating it here demonstrates is far from a given.)
Edit: Ooo-wee, I see the moderator's ready finger on the trigger all over this this thread.
macgyver10 said:
Current MRI machines are not condusive to normal relaxed listening. They are also pretty noisy i understand.
dave
Fokker,I'd like to clarify a thing or two as I feel some of your comments point at me.1)See all my posts and tell me if I used word religion even once.2)If ''they try to find every scientific theory in the universe........''points at me also for my comment on Galileo then I think you lost it.I said that to point out that there are times where science can sometimes prove at a later time what today fights at.I never tried to give this little example a religious dimension,others did.3)Now about that million again:Why don't you find the ''guts''to do it yourself(oh...sounds like DIY!!!)?In your post 433 you clearly say''YES, ALL CABLES MAKE A DIFFERENCE''
planet10 said:
Headphones? Actually I've been in CTscan machine, and it was very relaxing.
I was being an imp!
😉
What should I listen for?
Official Moderator Message: This is a technical forum devoted to audio, with a heavy emphasis on music reproduction. Please cease ANY further discussion of religion and/or politics.
macgyver10 said:
I don't think so. An ABX test (certainly as practised) has as much validity as an anecdotal test and its use as an indication of scientic proof is just as valid.
I'll just have to go with th call of the practising statician on this one. IIRC something to do with the forced choice in an ABX test (ie in ABX you are not asked to say whether there is a difference, you have to say whether X is A or B)
dave
rdf said:
Actually I don't take issue with your consistency, or expertise. I'm not sure why you think I have?
rdf said:
Actually that was a sincere thank you. You made an error and admitted it. I think that deserves respect. Also, I haven't ignored your calculations at all. In fact, the capacitance was a concern of mine, and in part why I conducted some tests. My email was a personal opinion, and I don't think Randi presented it as any more than that. My opinion was that for the money, Cat5 makes the best speaker cable. However, this forum, including your contributions, have made me re-evaluate that recomendation. I might not call it "best" anymore. How's "very good"?
rdf said:
Actually, what does any of it have to do with audiblity? That's the real question of this thread. The fortunate thing about skeptics, Randi included, is that opinion can change as more information and evidence comes in. That's what it is to be a skeptic. Randi is corrected all the time, and humbly accepts his lumps. So do I. I think you've made some very valid and excellent points which I will definitely consider.
Panicos K said:
I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are grossly mistaken on that account.
Panicos K said:
I believe the test is to say if a cable can make an audioable difference. and you can find my position on that front quite clearly.
if you think that you can tell two cables apart, what's standing between you and a million dollars? your hatred toward money?
🙂
planet10 said:
Sorry for the pompousness.planet10 said:
One point I do want to make: there is nothing about ABX testing, and the quite simple statistical test that is typically used, that makes it inherently of low power.
If one scans through the ABX test data (from the site that's been referenced) there are plenty of examples of genuinely audible differences (phono cartridges and loudspeakers, for example) that easily reject the null hypothesis of prob=1/2.
Dumbass said:
that list probably includes microphones, recording media, or even coding algorithms.
macgyver10 said:
I disagree. Anecdotal evidence can be a pointer to something the researcher missed, or it could be a dead end..
Cheers, John
macgyver10 said:
It is a human effect that must be considered.
Agreed.macgyver10 said:
No, it will not. Human localization adjustment is not taken into account, and the test stimulus is one which does not exist in nature, further confounding the experiment. I predict failure of the test.macgyver10 said:
macgyver10 said:
With a single load..
macgyver10 said:
Although the tests look well done, repeating a test which is not sensitive to an entity does nothing. Imagine testing batteries for 3 decades using an AC voltmeter..
Cheers, John
The province of logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. ... Logic neither observes, nor invents, nor discovers; but judges. [System of Logic, John Stuart Mill]
jneutron said:
I have just got back to this thread but it seems to have become unintelligible. This sounds very profound but I am wasting brainwaves trying to pin down the actual meaning - could this be why it has gone on so long (discuss).
Check for yourself: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htmfokker said:
Audible differences found between different:
- capacitors (polypro vs ceramic under high heat)
- CD players
- loudspeakers
- tape decks
- phono carts
- power amps (tubed vs solid state)
- tape generations
The controversial tests were the ones that didn't detect differences between:
- interconnects
- speaker wires
- power amps (Dyna 400 vs "book" DIY transistor)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.