I don't dispute that, but if the differences are as obvious and easy as the claimants maintain, then the probabilities of a false negative are low.
My German reading ability is slower than I like (my German is conversational, not technical), so you'll have to bear with me as I slowly go through the tests you cited.
SY said:
I don´t dispute that 🙂, but that´s not a test on the audibility of differences but on the ability of a listener to find the correct words of describing a (maybe audible) difference. I´m sure we agree on this point.
My comment wasn´t directed at you personally, but more to your argument that a test result would/could end the discussion. I seriously doubt that- nothing will stop this discussion ever. 🙂
Do you have already the pdf about the german test or would you like to have it send per mail?
zigzagflux said:
If you like this one, have a look to the other examples/experiments at the viscog.beckman-site. 🙂
I believe double blind or placebo tests are done all of the time in the medical field. I think the main difference though is they do extensive interviewing along with the tests. And there is a variable in the tests that can effect the results. Basically if the person *thinks* they are getting the real drug they will often feel better. If they *think* they are getting the placebo then they will feel no change. This is regardless of what they actually took.
dzzmiller said:
I was working hifi 20 years ago and heard a lot of amps that were state-of-the-art. Today's amps are -- in general -- better. (now it may well be a different case for your generic future shop receiver)
dave
SY said:
oh.
it seems to me that some people ARE making that claim. i'm just trying to point out the easy answer to the original question of this thread ('s title).
does cable make a difference? yes, it does.
in my mind, if you can prove that ANY cable can be 'heard', you have proven that all cables have potentially different sonics.
i use guitar patch cables all the time, and one is clearly better than another if you can hear buzz on one, and the other is silent. they both work, but one is definitely better than the other.
the real question seems to being asked is broadened to 'do all cables make a difference, and is more expensive wire always better than cheaper, 'adequate' wire'?
to that i would say, 'no', the differences are no longer blantantly clear enough to identify as better or worse, and are not worth the dough. and even if there IS a large difference, at those prices a bigger improvement would be better speakers and better amplifiers and a better 8-track machine (i've heard the new 'cassette' format is even better than 8-track, but that's clearly impossible because it's smaller and the tape is thinner). <<<<< i'm joking about 8-track. MP3's rule. unfortunately, i'm still stuck with vinyl.
planet10 said:
Well, speakers are better.
I would find it interesting to take 5 SS amps for the 80's and 5 current SS amps and see if they could be separated in blind testing. I'll throw pres into that too. I do think phono amps are better now.
Even if todays best amps are somewhat better, my main point still stands: Amps are a mature product that value is determined by perception and price point. Like cable there's manipulation to make certain products sound brighter or warmer. But amps should just make amplitude bigger. If we're talking about faithfully reproducing the source, it is well know how to do that at a couple dollars a watt. The reason high end amps have not followed typical electronics price curve is that audiophile amps have no connection to technical reality.
I'll point out too that the pioneers like Linkwitz, who are interested in SOUND, and have extensive electronics background, do not think much of expensive cables and exotic products. They want good equipment, but not what a typical audiophile considers the best equipment.
I'm not critical of very expensive equipment any more than other luxury items. There's elegance in over built electronics with good industrial design.
It's a bit like in wine but with even more BS...
You can have good sound for reasonable price, but if you're looking for the best and the edge notice that prices goes up exponentially. Also the closer you get to the real deal the more these little changes like cables makes all the difference.
You can have good sound for reasonable price, but if you're looking for the best and the edge notice that prices goes up exponentially. Also the closer you get to the real deal the more these little changes like cables makes all the difference.
It's nothing like wine. With wine, blind testing is the norm.
The real question is, are there audible effect to wire not attributable to mundane reasons (amp stability, frequency response, level)? For example, no one debates that if one set of speaker cables is bizarrely thin it will sound different than one that isn't if the resulting resistance causes more than 0.1dB frequency response difference. There IS a debate about whether magic silver and poly-luminous-floobywad cables will sound any different than a $5 extension cord. There is as yet no evidence that this is true.
Jakob, I would very much appreciate a pdf. The precis you posted doesn't seem to show much significance and has little about the the controls. sy at syclotron little dot com.
The real question is, are there audible effect to wire not attributable to mundane reasons (amp stability, frequency response, level)? For example, no one debates that if one set of speaker cables is bizarrely thin it will sound different than one that isn't if the resulting resistance causes more than 0.1dB frequency response difference. There IS a debate about whether magic silver and poly-luminous-floobywad cables will sound any different than a $5 extension cord. There is as yet no evidence that this is true.
Jakob, I would very much appreciate a pdf. The precis you posted doesn't seem to show much significance and has little about the the controls. sy at syclotron little dot com.
dzzmiller said:
I probably have 100+ 70s & 80s amps here (althou none of them would be from the upper echelons). None are as good as the modest chipAmp in my office. The best of the old ones are often very small (<15w).
And as to blind testing, i'm still waiting for someone to present a budget & methodology for conducting a valid one for audio. It is not trivial (or cheap) to conduct one that anything can be concluded from. (you have been paying attention to what Jakob2 has been saying?)
dave
tests
Well... yes they are... but "placebos" aren't really a test type, just one of the treatment combos of an experimental design...
Hmmnn... I believe what you are describing is the criteria for evaluating the placebo response, not some additional uncontrolled variable, given that proper statistical design is imposed (not always true). That's the whole point of "placebo", it's supposed to be a "trick".
John L.
Key said:
Well... yes they are... but "placebos" aren't really a test type, just one of the treatment combos of an experimental design...
Key said:
Hmmnn... I believe what you are describing is the criteria for evaluating the placebo response, not some additional uncontrolled variable, given that proper statistical design is imposed (not always true). That's the whole point of "placebo", it's supposed to be a "trick".
John L.
My main point which I should have stated was that you need to ask that question in ANY double blind test.
"Did you think you recieved the placebo or the real medicine?"
Because what the person is fixated on at the time is a factor.
"Did you think you recieved the placebo or the real medicine?"
Because what the person is fixated on at the time is a factor.
I'm talking about amps. Not receivers or integrated. I don't think there were a 100 brands of hifi amps in 1980.planet10 said:
I'm kinda bored by what Jacob2 is saying. The fact that it is so hard to show a small difference makes the point. A little EQ or a little smile on the equalizer curve will make one group sound a little better. It hard enough to show that cables sound different, much less better.
As fate would have it, I just saw this photo in another thread. Look at the amp Feastrex is using to demo their product. I believe I may have that amp in my attic with one channel blown out. Date of manufacturer on mine is 1977.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1741384#post1741384
Why do all these DB ABX tests that have been done to death. How about something new, or at least a road less travelled?
Let's hook up the test subjects (the lsiteners) to a polygraph, or an EEG, or both. 😀
Really.
That way cables could be switched and the listener would not have to strain to tell them apart, pick which is which, be "stressed out" by the testing. Just sit back and enjoy the music. If the graphs are set up to record which cable is being used, we could see if there was any difference in the state of the listener.
It could be done. Would it show anything? Who knows?
But there have been simialr tests done that indicated differnces in signal formats.
Anybody here got a spare EEG we can borrow?
Let's hook up the test subjects (the lsiteners) to a polygraph, or an EEG, or both. 😀
Really.
That way cables could be switched and the listener would not have to strain to tell them apart, pick which is which, be "stressed out" by the testing. Just sit back and enjoy the music. If the graphs are set up to record which cable is being used, we could see if there was any difference in the state of the listener.
It could be done. Would it show anything? Who knows?
But there have been simialr tests done that indicated differnces in signal formats.
Anybody here got a spare EEG we can borrow?
panomaniac said:
Or like in the simpsons episode, and hook them up to a shock machine
🙂 , and if they get the answer wrong....
That should close the gap between the two sides heh heh
Testing 1..2...3
I think an active MRI scan during listening might be more revealing, don't you think? Or perhaps positron emission tomography after a brisk jolt!!??
John L.
😀
panomaniac said:
I think an active MRI scan during listening might be more revealing, don't you think? Or perhaps positron emission tomography after a brisk jolt!!??
John L.
😀
panomaniac said:
It's been done. A couple years back researchers published results of an experiment studying the effect of nominally inaudible ultrasonic audio on brain waves. The test signals were some form of Thai traditional music (bells?) at Redbook and higher rates. They claim to have found statistically significant differences in listener states between the two. I heard the findings were challenged but never learned of the results.
I think Paulinator must be sitting somewhere warm with a drink in his hand just pi$$ing himself about what he started. I mean, who would have imagined that you could start a thread with so many replies about something so trivial in the world of audio. He hasn't been back to the thread for years and I can't blame him but what the heck, it's all good fun, especially as a spectator eh Paul?
Personally I like the Braniac/Simpsons thing. If you don't pick the expensive cable you get a shock until you begin to "see the light" No wait, seeing the light after a shock is probably not a good thing.
Cheers.
Personally I like the Braniac/Simpsons thing. If you don't pick the expensive cable you get a shock until you begin to "see the light" No wait, seeing the light after a shock is probably not a good thing.
Cheers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.