No difference in actually have a difference noted. You see, it is the REALITY of audio differences, not the protocol of measuring audio differences that is important.
Yes.
For me it is irony that those people who believe in cable differences do so on the willing acceptance of what their ears tell them, but when the differences "magically disappear" as in a DBT, they are suddenly un-willing to accept what their ears tell them.
All this with the same ears, same location, same equipment and the same two cables. And with ... the same level of immunity to psychological factors.
... and the differences disappear again when doing a DBT. That is my problem.
Its a pity that you see it as a problem, because it so easily explained. Has been, for decades.
jd
We don't have a problem accepting the results of a well executed DBT if only we can find one. 😉
All this with the same ears, same unknown location, same unknown equipment, same unknown conditions and the same two unknown cables or do you have a reference to a better DBT?
I think John has been very explicit about the equipment he uses. And he admits that with ANY sort of blind conditions, using his system he can't hear the differences. No need to DBT when he can't even get past an informal check.
We don't think you will if you are looking for one that proves your point. 😀
I was talking generally but see SY's post above. Are you suggesting that John Curl would willingly take part in a flawed DBT?
AJ, I can't see the pics but if you have EnAbled them you are certainly entitled to your opinion. From past discussions I did not get the impression you had heard them.
If this is true, I owe you an apology. Anyway to see those pics without signing up to that site?
Sorry for the OT. guys.
Let TG and SY do their test then we talk again. I've stated the problems I see with the usual tests many times before.
DBT's aren't used as proof of no differences.
A null result is not proof of no difference.
se
Right but remember the redenation "if one million 🙂 DBT's show a null result, then we can assume...."
Normally no mention is made of the test conditions, only the result is important (if it suit you of course 😀 ).
There is no such thing. As has been said about 10,000 times, YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. And NO-ONE disputes that there are mundane cable effects that can be heard- how many times does this have to be repeated before you get it?
Actually SY I was suggesting the wires as a third set. Obviously I still don't understand the concept behind a positive reference sample. Enlightenment would be appreciated.
Bud
Bud
positive control
Hi Bud...
I know you asked SY, but here goes anyway...
A positive control is one that demonstrates the proposed variable/effect being tested at a known level; in this case, that variable is unknown or at least undefined, since no one (yet) has proposed a verifiable mechanism for it, so it would seem to be difficult to manufacture it.
from Wiki
Scientific control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Positive and negative control
Many experiments are designed to include a negative control and a positive control, which are the simplest forms of controls.[1]
Positive controls confirm that the procedure is competent in observing the effect (therefore minimizing false negatives). Negative controls confirm that the procedure is not observing an unrelated effect (therefore minimizing false positives). A positive control is a procedure that is very similar to the actual experimental test, but which is known from previous experience to give a result that is hypothesized to occur in the treatment group (positive result). A negative control is known to give a negative result. The positive control confirms that the basic conditions of the experiment were able to produce a positive result, even if none of the actual experimental samples produce a positive result. The negative control demonstrates the base-line result obtained when a test does not produce a measurable positive result; often the value of the negative control is treated as a "background" value to be subtracted from the test sample results, or be used as the "100%" value against which the test sample results are weighed.
For example, in an enzyme assay to measure the amount of an enzyme in a set of extracts, a positive control would be an assay where you add some of the purified enzyme, and a negative control would be where you do not add any extract. The positive control should give a large amount of enzyme activity, while the negative control should give very low to no activity.
If both the treatment group and the negative control produce the result, it can be inferred that another variable acted on the experiment and the data is discarded. Similarly, if the positive control fails, we know there was something wrong with our procedure so we discard any results and begin again. If both controls behave correctly, we can confidently accept the results of the experiment as the effect of the desired variable.
Hi Bud...
I know you asked SY, but here goes anyway...
A positive control is one that demonstrates the proposed variable/effect being tested at a known level; in this case, that variable is unknown or at least undefined, since no one (yet) has proposed a verifiable mechanism for it, so it would seem to be difficult to manufacture it.
from Wiki
Scientific control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Positive and negative control
Many experiments are designed to include a negative control and a positive control, which are the simplest forms of controls.[1]
Positive controls confirm that the procedure is competent in observing the effect (therefore minimizing false negatives). Negative controls confirm that the procedure is not observing an unrelated effect (therefore minimizing false positives). A positive control is a procedure that is very similar to the actual experimental test, but which is known from previous experience to give a result that is hypothesized to occur in the treatment group (positive result). A negative control is known to give a negative result. The positive control confirms that the basic conditions of the experiment were able to produce a positive result, even if none of the actual experimental samples produce a positive result. The negative control demonstrates the base-line result obtained when a test does not produce a measurable positive result; often the value of the negative control is treated as a "background" value to be subtracted from the test sample results, or be used as the "100%" value against which the test sample results are weighed.
For example, in an enzyme assay to measure the amount of an enzyme in a set of extracts, a positive control would be an assay where you add some of the purified enzyme, and a negative control would be where you do not add any extract. The positive control should give a large amount of enzyme activity, while the negative control should give very low to no activity.
If both the treatment group and the negative control produce the result, it can be inferred that another variable acted on the experiment and the data is discarded. Similarly, if the positive control fails, we know there was something wrong with our procedure so we discard any results and begin again. If both controls behave correctly, we can confidently accept the results of the experiment as the effect of the desired variable.
Last edited:
But he can hear differences (sighted) so we can eliminate the equipment he uses, and his hearing abilities .... or can we?
If we assume that the differences are there under both test and non test conditions then his hearing ability must be suspect.
On the other hand if we assume he imagined the differences then his hearing abilty under test conditions is good.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.