Koinichiwa,
With "limited blind" I refer to a simplified protocl that does use a strictly blind test, however one that is "AB" and not "ABX". The reliable identification of A or B as what they are after repeat comparisons is then in the context of using my ears & brain plus my system quite easy.
I am in principle in strong disagreement with both the ABX protocol and the usual statistical analysis of these tests. As I noted before, a "well" implemented (actually, it is only well implemented if you want some pseudo scientific proof that no relaibly identifiable difference exists - otherwise it is poorely implemented) Double Blind test following the ABX protocol can be used to "proove" that having one stereo channel out of phase is inaudible.....
Few if any of those who promote certain styles of blind testing have ever "blind tested" their tests....
Sayonara
SY said:
With "limited blind" I refer to a simplified protocl that does use a strictly blind test, however one that is "AB" and not "ABX". The reliable identification of A or B as what they are after repeat comparisons is then in the context of using my ears & brain plus my system quite easy.
I am in principle in strong disagreement with both the ABX protocol and the usual statistical analysis of these tests. As I noted before, a "well" implemented (actually, it is only well implemented if you want some pseudo scientific proof that no relaibly identifiable difference exists - otherwise it is poorely implemented) Double Blind test following the ABX protocol can be used to "proove" that having one stereo channel out of phase is inaudible.....
Few if any of those who promote certain styles of blind testing have ever "blind tested" their tests....
Sayonara
That's exactly 180 degrees from reality. Valid sensory testing (including but certainly not limited to ABX) shows all kinds of things to be detectable, and many things surprisingly so. It just fails, to date, to validate hypotheses that you apparently believe to be true. But that's been beaten to death elsewhere- "belief" is a thing unto itself.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Single blind or double blind?
The ABX protocol can also be used to show that one channel out of phase is audible. And who said the only valid tests use the ABX protocol?
And a null result of a blind test isn't proof of inaudibility. That's a complete mischaracterization and anyone making such a claim should not be taken too seriously.
Could you explain how you blind tested your blind test?
se
I started this thread, so hear is my coup de grace post, hopefully to tidy it up at the end:
17 pages and it's all the same. Electrons. Capacitance. Resistance. Skin effect. RF interference. The conductivity of oxides........
That still doesn't explain why no matter how many times I test someone, they cannot identify "good" cables from "bad" cables.
And as soon as I mention blind tests, it's back to the "You can't trust a blind test! It's inconclusive!" from all the cable beleivers (I say beleivers because I think it's more of a religeon than a science).
HERE IS MY ONE LAST QUESTION:
When it comes right down to it, all that really matters is whether or not you can hear a difference, so, all science aside, if you can't trust the results of a blind listening test, THEN WHY CAN YOU TRUST THE RESULTS OF AN OPEN LISTENING TEST? Isn't that a pure contradiction? Isn't that saying "I can't identify the better cables' sound until I can see that it is coming through my system in that braided, sheilded, teflon coated, gold plated, oxygen free, nylon wrapped (for aesthetic puposes only), RF blocked, low resistance, low capacitance cable?
Someone please tell me that if I were to come over to your house and make you think you were listening to your Kimber cables when in fact I was running the signal through 40 daisy-chained Sega Genesis controllers, and you fell for it repeatedly, that you still would swear on your mother's grave that the cable's were worth the money.
I think it's Voodoo. (Church Lady voice) And as we all know Voodoo is none other than a spawn of, oh, let's see..... shall we say...... SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
17 pages and it's all the same. Electrons. Capacitance. Resistance. Skin effect. RF interference. The conductivity of oxides........
That still doesn't explain why no matter how many times I test someone, they cannot identify "good" cables from "bad" cables.
And as soon as I mention blind tests, it's back to the "You can't trust a blind test! It's inconclusive!" from all the cable beleivers (I say beleivers because I think it's more of a religeon than a science).
HERE IS MY ONE LAST QUESTION:
When it comes right down to it, all that really matters is whether or not you can hear a difference, so, all science aside, if you can't trust the results of a blind listening test, THEN WHY CAN YOU TRUST THE RESULTS OF AN OPEN LISTENING TEST? Isn't that a pure contradiction? Isn't that saying "I can't identify the better cables' sound until I can see that it is coming through my system in that braided, sheilded, teflon coated, gold plated, oxygen free, nylon wrapped (for aesthetic puposes only), RF blocked, low resistance, low capacitance cable?
Someone please tell me that if I were to come over to your house and make you think you were listening to your Kimber cables when in fact I was running the signal through 40 daisy-chained Sega Genesis controllers, and you fell for it repeatedly, that you still would swear on your mother's grave that the cable's were worth the money.
I think it's Voodoo. (Church Lady voice) And as we all know Voodoo is none other than a spawn of, oh, let's see..... shall we say...... SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, the point of Elliotts RFI theory, which I referred to, but
didn't get much response to, is that it could possibly explain
things. If those who "hear" a difference between cables live
in an area with RFI problems and have equipment that is
sensitive to the type of RFI problem Elliott discusses. Now,
if the blind tests happened to take place at a location with little
or no RFI problems and/or with different and less sensitive
equipment it could explain the outcome. However, there are
quite a lot of "if" in this and Elliotts theory is exactly that, a
theory, no more no less. Anyway, it would be interesting if
someone who claims to hear differences between cables at
home would bring along the different cables, preferably all
other equipment, to some place which is not RFI-polluted.
didn't get much response to, is that it could possibly explain
things. If those who "hear" a difference between cables live
in an area with RFI problems and have equipment that is
sensitive to the type of RFI problem Elliott discusses. Now,
if the blind tests happened to take place at a location with little
or no RFI problems and/or with different and less sensitive
equipment it could explain the outcome. However, there are
quite a lot of "if" in this and Elliotts theory is exactly that, a
theory, no more no less. Anyway, it would be interesting if
someone who claims to hear differences between cables at
home would bring along the different cables, preferably all
other equipment, to some place which is not RFI-polluted.
Christer,
I have read that article and I found it intriguing. There is a lot out there on RFI and I suspect it has got a lot to do with perceived sound quality. And as you say unfortunately it is the kind of damned thing that is precisely not easily reproduced. Even in the same house with the same equipment and the same cables, depending on time of day - or weather conditions! things may come in differently, either over the air, or over the power lines.
Me my goal is to have a system that is both cable and RFI insensitive ;-) ... I mean so stable, well shielded, and filtered, that the normal gear will do. Sadly I am far from that point.
Right now for instance I am going nuts because I believe recently the sound in my system has taken a notch downwards. I get a lot of the "nasty buzz" kind distortion on transients.
I can't pinpoint the problem, and I suspect something "simple" like, bad solder joint, loose connector etc. But it's on both channels, it's there whether I switch pre amps, cd players, cables, line plugs, deconnect TV, deconnect tuner, whatnot. So, could be, new FM/TV/cell phone transmitter in the area etc. Best progress I made lately was when I switched off the antenna booster of the TV (!) , the post-booster cable to the TV ran close to my (balanced and shielded
), interconnects... But there still is some buzz left. I won't change cables. I want my system to be so insensitive to that problem that it won't reappear in the future when the next transmitter goes on air.
So, cables and the RFI environment may be an issue in some places at some times with some equipment. The best would be to get a bunch of el cheapo cables but with different R L C characteristics and check in your place and system.
Incidentally saw another article calculating the current demands to drive a cable. With long lines, some capacitance and low Zout, they can become very high (dozens of mA). That in turn could strain the output device into the high distortion area even when no frequency rolloff occurs due to the R-C.
MBK
I have read that article and I found it intriguing. There is a lot out there on RFI and I suspect it has got a lot to do with perceived sound quality. And as you say unfortunately it is the kind of damned thing that is precisely not easily reproduced. Even in the same house with the same equipment and the same cables, depending on time of day - or weather conditions! things may come in differently, either over the air, or over the power lines.
Me my goal is to have a system that is both cable and RFI insensitive ;-) ... I mean so stable, well shielded, and filtered, that the normal gear will do. Sadly I am far from that point.
Right now for instance I am going nuts because I believe recently the sound in my system has taken a notch downwards. I get a lot of the "nasty buzz" kind distortion on transients.
I can't pinpoint the problem, and I suspect something "simple" like, bad solder joint, loose connector etc. But it's on both channels, it's there whether I switch pre amps, cd players, cables, line plugs, deconnect TV, deconnect tuner, whatnot. So, could be, new FM/TV/cell phone transmitter in the area etc. Best progress I made lately was when I switched off the antenna booster of the TV (!) , the post-booster cable to the TV ran close to my (balanced and shielded
), interconnects... But there still is some buzz left. I won't change cables. I want my system to be so insensitive to that problem that it won't reappear in the future when the next transmitter goes on air. So, cables and the RFI environment may be an issue in some places at some times with some equipment. The best would be to get a bunch of el cheapo cables but with different R L C characteristics and check in your place and system.
Incidentally saw another article calculating the current demands to drive a cable. With long lines, some capacitance and low Zout, they can become very high (dozens of mA). That in turn could strain the output device into the high distortion area even when no frequency rolloff occurs due to the R-C.
MBK
MBK,
if you suspect RFI might be the cause of your problems you
could try Elliotts suggestion and put Zobel filters on the line
level outputs. It doesn't cost much to try it.
As for long cables, yes that can be a problem. A friend of mine
has 10m long interconnects from the preamp to the monoblocks,
that ends up at around 500pF which can be strainful for many
amplifiers. His new preamp has 3W class A output stages, though,
so he doesn't have any problems with that anymore.
if you suspect RFI might be the cause of your problems you
could try Elliotts suggestion and put Zobel filters on the line
level outputs. It doesn't cost much to try it.
As for long cables, yes that can be a problem. A friend of mine
has 10m long interconnects from the preamp to the monoblocks,
that ends up at around 500pF which can be strainful for many
amplifiers. His new preamp has 3W class A output stages, though,
so he doesn't have any problems with that anymore.
Koinichiwa,
Actually. You CAN believe Blind Tests. You just need to apply correct staistical methodes to evaluating the results.
And that means for example that you require several 100 datapoints if you wish to analyse the Data to the .05 level of significance. If you have fewer datapoints you MUST increase the significance level or you are running an unacceptably high risk of wrongly acceting the null hypothesis as correct, when in fact it is correct.
You cannot trust most listening tests, open or blind. If you wish to use the results of any form of test as near conclusive proof then you must ensure first that the test itself is sufficiently "calibrated". I first and foremost recommend the following effects to be tested:
1) Polarity reversal of one channel
2) Stereo Channel reversal
3) Polarity reversal of both channels with a piece of music recorded using minimal miking
Of the above mentioned 1) & 2) should be audible with a 100% certainty and those listeners who can identify 3) with a resonable confidence should be retained for the test. Of course, on many systems 3) will not be audible as the speakers used are not time-coherent and suffer from excessive phaseshift, so in such cases the whoe testsetup must be revised until a material proportion of listeners can identify polarity reversal on both channels.
Having done this you may conduct your test with the confidence that you will releiably identify large sonic changes and that you have listeners who are sufficiently sensitive and able to function under DBT conditions. Certain people tend to experience a lot of stress under DBT conditions simply due to the large weight placed upon such by certain fractions, so the convinced "no difference" listener will never hear a difference even if it exists and the convinced "there is a difference" listener will hear a difference evern where non exists, resulting in both listeners scoring insignificant results.
Well, why don't you come over and do exactly that. Except my cables are not kimber of course and for good reasons.
Well, I don't swear on my mothers grave (may she rest in peace), but you are again mixing two completely issues. You on one hand argue about the validity of tests and their evaluation and you suddenly sitch to commenting upon a specific brand of cable and arguing about the value (or not) for that brands cables based on a test you propose but to my view without any intention of actually carying the test out (You are welcome to replace the 1m Balanced interconnects betwenn Phnostage or DAC and passive linestage with your daisychaned Sega Genesis controllers).
I think as mentioned before, you motivations are very transparent. You have no interest in the actual truth of what is audible or not, you merely wish to persu a personally motivated crusade against commercially manufacturerd, marketed and sold "High End" cables.
While I must agree with you that MOST of these cables are very badly engineered and often are by no means worth the obscene amounts asked for them, I cannot agree with your reasoning that because of that there no possible audible differences between cables.
Ah, so you are a racist fundamentalist evangelical too. That explains a few things. How much do you actually know about Voodoo (or in fact even about the entety often called "Satan" based strictly upon the scriptures)?
I think arguments nop matter how absolutely true and proovabel will not make any difference to you anyway, so off you go with all the others on the wide and spacious rood. N'joy.
Sayonara
The Paulinator said:
Actually. You CAN believe Blind Tests. You just need to apply correct staistical methodes to evaluating the results.
And that means for example that you require several 100 datapoints if you wish to analyse the Data to the .05 level of significance. If you have fewer datapoints you MUST increase the significance level or you are running an unacceptably high risk of wrongly acceting the null hypothesis as correct, when in fact it is correct.
The Paulinator said:
You cannot trust most listening tests, open or blind. If you wish to use the results of any form of test as near conclusive proof then you must ensure first that the test itself is sufficiently "calibrated". I first and foremost recommend the following effects to be tested:
1) Polarity reversal of one channel
2) Stereo Channel reversal
3) Polarity reversal of both channels with a piece of music recorded using minimal miking
Of the above mentioned 1) & 2) should be audible with a 100% certainty and those listeners who can identify 3) with a resonable confidence should be retained for the test. Of course, on many systems 3) will not be audible as the speakers used are not time-coherent and suffer from excessive phaseshift, so in such cases the whoe testsetup must be revised until a material proportion of listeners can identify polarity reversal on both channels.
Having done this you may conduct your test with the confidence that you will releiably identify large sonic changes and that you have listeners who are sufficiently sensitive and able to function under DBT conditions. Certain people tend to experience a lot of stress under DBT conditions simply due to the large weight placed upon such by certain fractions, so the convinced "no difference" listener will never hear a difference even if it exists and the convinced "there is a difference" listener will hear a difference evern where non exists, resulting in both listeners scoring insignificant results.
The Paulinator said:
Well, why don't you come over and do exactly that. Except my cables are not kimber of course and for good reasons.
The Paulinator said:
Well, I don't swear on my mothers grave (may she rest in peace), but you are again mixing two completely issues. You on one hand argue about the validity of tests and their evaluation and you suddenly sitch to commenting upon a specific brand of cable and arguing about the value (or not) for that brands cables based on a test you propose but to my view without any intention of actually carying the test out (You are welcome to replace the 1m Balanced interconnects betwenn Phnostage or DAC and passive linestage with your daisychaned Sega Genesis controllers).
I think as mentioned before, you motivations are very transparent. You have no interest in the actual truth of what is audible or not, you merely wish to persu a personally motivated crusade against commercially manufacturerd, marketed and sold "High End" cables.
While I must agree with you that MOST of these cables are very badly engineered and often are by no means worth the obscene amounts asked for them, I cannot agree with your reasoning that because of that there no possible audible differences between cables.
The Paulinator said:
Ah, so you are a racist fundamentalist evangelical too. That explains a few things. How much do you actually know about Voodoo (or in fact even about the entety often called "Satan" based strictly upon the scriptures)?
I think arguments nop matter how absolutely true and proovabel will not make any difference to you anyway, so off you go with all the others on the wide and spacious rood. N'joy.
Sayonara
Just to take this thread in the wrong direction for a moment...
I am new to this forum. I imagine that this thread is the last place I should be doing this, but...I am looking for a neutral-sounding pair of 15' speaker cables. I imagine that the people observing this thread either feel "cables are cables", or feel strongly about certain brands/models/types. Undoubtedly there are many/most items sold on hype in this realm. What would you guys recommend as the best value for my needs? Cable is going between a nice tube amplifier and a speaker that houses focal drivers. I am looking for neutral performance, vs. brightness or softness. I have heard Cardas neutral reference and I would be pleased with that, I am just wondering if there is a comparable product that is much cheaper. Also, I prefer a helical internal wire configuration, and something not terribly large in diameter. I do not have the privelege of trying different speaker wire types before I buy so I really have to make my best guess based on advice and try that out (I will be purchasing over the internet).
Another question, I guess targeted initially to you "believers" (and others): if you took a 15' of a coiled-up, already-broken-in wire (say, Cardas neutral reference in this case) and wacked it very hard on the floor about 20 times, uncoiled it and connected it to the system again, would there be a difference in the soundstage? In what respect? (I do not have the privelege to try this experiment myself). Does wacking your cable make a difference? 😱) But really, let me know your input.
I am new to this forum. I imagine that this thread is the last place I should be doing this, but...I am looking for a neutral-sounding pair of 15' speaker cables. I imagine that the people observing this thread either feel "cables are cables", or feel strongly about certain brands/models/types. Undoubtedly there are many/most items sold on hype in this realm. What would you guys recommend as the best value for my needs? Cable is going between a nice tube amplifier and a speaker that houses focal drivers. I am looking for neutral performance, vs. brightness or softness. I have heard Cardas neutral reference and I would be pleased with that, I am just wondering if there is a comparable product that is much cheaper. Also, I prefer a helical internal wire configuration, and something not terribly large in diameter. I do not have the privelege of trying different speaker wire types before I buy so I really have to make my best guess based on advice and try that out (I will be purchasing over the internet).
Another question, I guess targeted initially to you "believers" (and others): if you took a 15' of a coiled-up, already-broken-in wire (say, Cardas neutral reference in this case) and wacked it very hard on the floor about 20 times, uncoiled it and connected it to the system again, would there be a difference in the soundstage? In what respect? (I do not have the privelege to try this experiment myself). Does wacking your cable make a difference? 😱) But really, let me know your input.
The Paulinator said:
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Just to clear this up, guys, The Church Lady is a character created on the American comedy show Saturday Night Live by comedian Dana Carvey in order to spoof those very over-religious attitudes. The Satan bit is part of the spoof. Some memorable characters from that show become very famous over here, and frequently get made into full length movies. Carvey and Mike Myers created Wayne's World, for instance, as a continuing skit on the show before taking it to the movies.
Alas, they apparently do not get Saturday Night Live in the City of the Sanjian. 🙁 🙁
Well, that RC network did clean up the sound somehow. Or maybe I'm imagining. There seems to be more "darkness" around the sound, less hash around it in a way.
I still have, however, some buzz at least on the CD I was listening to: "Unplugged 2" track 16, Elton John's voice on my system sounds distorted on many occasions along the track. The piano and all else seems fine. Maybe it's the CD after all? Mic gain? Compression? Maybe my system is just fine and I just hear more and more clearly how badly CD's are produced??? Ah well...
MBK
I still have, however, some buzz at least on the CD I was listening to: "Unplugged 2" track 16, Elton John's voice on my system sounds distorted on many occasions along the track. The piano and all else seems fine. Maybe it's the CD after all? Mic gain? Compression? Maybe my system is just fine and I just hear more and more clearly how badly CD's are produced??? Ah well...
MBK
MBK said:
No it must be a real improvement. That tweak was too cheap
for wanting to believe that it helped. 🙂
Christer,
ha, I like that thinking! Suspicion to self delusion is always necessary.
Anyway most often the cheap tricks do the best: such as, cleaning connectors and soldering joints. And rebuilding a whole preamp likely causes more problems than it solves... food for thought...
BTW regarding the load, at 20 Khz it now has a load impedance of 785 Ohms, a bit low, but the driver has supposedly 26 dBu headroom into 600 Ohms (and 0dBu drives my power amp into clipping so it will never drive more than 0dBu), so the trick might just work with most "modern" fast op amps without excessive loading.
MBK
ha, I like that thinking! Suspicion to self delusion is always necessary.
Anyway most often the cheap tricks do the best: such as, cleaning connectors and soldering joints. And rebuilding a whole preamp likely causes more problems than it solves... food for thought...
BTW regarding the load, at 20 Khz it now has a load impedance of 785 Ohms, a bit low, but the driver has supposedly 26 dBu headroom into 600 Ohms (and 0dBu drives my power amp into clipping so it will never drive more than 0dBu), so the trick might just work with most "modern" fast op amps without excessive loading.
MBK
It's late here in Singapore already so I leave the CDP for tomorrow. It has the same output stage so the same values will do. And, importantly this will also cut down on remaining RF from the CDP... One could even put the RC network in cable connectors, possibly SMD, for untweaked equipment (or for stuff still under warranty ;-) )
MBK
MBK
oh, and there's the outputs of the active X-0 as well... the work just never ends...
Funny, my Zobel at the power amp output (chip amp, these days called gainclone) never made a difference.
MBK
Funny, my Zobel at the power amp output (chip amp, these days called gainclone) never made a difference.
MBK
This should be written in flashing neon. It's 99% of the battle, especially for people who buy a system, install it, listen to music, and don't change anything for a decade. Music lovers, by and large.
Depends on a lot of things. Like why it's being rebuilt and who's doing the work.
SY said:
Well that was tongue in cheek. I could have said:
In case of problem:
Search for simplest cause and simplest solution first.
To solve problem:
Increase complexity only if absolutely, positively necessary.
Corollary: Linear increase in complexity leads to exponential increase in troublespots.
Of course instinctively many people abide by 1/2 of this rule and hope that changing one capacitor/op amp/cable brand will make a workd of a difference. Easy to understand, easy procedure. But it's quite the opposite really - only in case of defective parts will this approach work. For all else, the other 1/2 of the situation, any part in question is embedded in a complex system and changing to a part with different specs will lead to unexpected consequences. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.
That's what I meant before with "I want to make my system insensitive" to such things, so tolerant and robust that a single capacitor brand won't make a world of difference.
Again, my suspicion is that devices (active and passive) are usually quite OK. It's the connection between them that gives the first big trouble: connectors, solder joints, cables. The second big troublespot is those system effects that are very hard to predict and to model.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.