Kuei Yang Wang said:
I don't think any of this should be a concern. i think the results should be apparent enough that a big "scientific" process is not necessary to get results. I think if the differences are worth any trouble or money there should be no doubt, but that is my opinion, of course.
Ok, I'll be there in an hour.
Look, there is no need to get nitpicky at every word I use and how I say things. You get my point. I did not say "Kimber Kable" to evoke an opinion on that brand, it was just part of the example of what someone might compare cheap cables to. Chill out.
On the contrary, I have EVERY interest in what the truth is, I just feel that i have already found it. And I would love for someone to prove me wrong. My motivation is discussion and though, not contention as is yours.
Would you please point out where I stated that cables don't make an audible difference in sound quality because they cost too much? I can't seem to find that anywhere. That is YOUR reasoning, not mine.
Yeah, I'm racist for quoting one of my favoite TV characters. And not beleiving that cables make a difference is a real crime. How dare I beleive such a thing! Off to the monkey house with me!
Because I don't beleive what you do about cables I'm suddenly a mean guy with no morals and a real stingy hardnose who won't listen to reasoning? You sure do jump to alot of conclusions. What makes you think I don't want to hear reasoning? Just because I have not yet found one person who can consistently differentiate their high end cables from a pair of zip cords I must be crazy to not beleive there is a difference! What was I thinking?
You sound like someone getting defensive because I am speaking against your beleifs.
Look dude, can we discuss here and not down each other because of their opinions?
Koinichiwa,
Well, you can of course do whatever you like. Yet if you wish to claim any reasonable "universal" applicability for your tests you must disclose the statistics used, the actual results and reasnable details about the test steup (to ensure the speakers used where reasonably free from distortion and compression, of reasnably controlled dispersion and used in an acoustic envioronment that provides a reasonable RT60 etc, as well as avoiding sources, recording selections and amplification that would prejudice results towards a "null" result).
Now I rarely if ever give a full disclosure of my statistics and data, simply because I do not claim universal applicability. I only note that the results are sufficient to convince me (and please note that I am a fair bit of a sceptic, but an openminded one) of the reality of the effects. I have repeatedly in this thread and previously in others at AA recommended certain approaches to blind testing using small sample numbers.
I have also recommended that for any really relevant test a very large sample size is required and one where both test each participating individual is "prescreened" for sensitivity (alternatively run the test with extremely large numbers of participants and use the top 10% as indicator for the "possible sensitivity limit" and the whole sample as indicator of a representative population average).
Such a study would literally require 100's of participants if not thousands (such as are applied for example in final rounds of double blind drugs tests) and would require someone in Academia with both will and time at her/his hands to implement and carry out. I would recommend a setup and process similar to that applied by Mr (now Dr. I believe) Ackermann in his recent test, details of which are described in the following Stereophile Article:
http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?203
Well, first your above statement shows a profound lack of understanding of the abilities and limits of blind testing and somehow you bring again into the issue the subject of money, which has absolutely no place if we discuss the audibility of different cable "technologies".
Money comes in if you discuss the issue of "Value for Money", an area where I believe I have already agreed with you that most commercial High End Cables provide poor value for money. However the two issues have no connection whatsoever and mixing the two up shows very poor logic and science.
My main objection to this was not the specification of Kimber but the fact that you again muddle up two completely separate and unconnected issues into one.
Well. I know a lot of people who have found Jesus/Buddah/Mohamed and so on. Their belief sadly however is irational and based on incorrect reading of scripture distorted by politics and many other human frailties. Their belief may be in itself pure, but is irrational and founded on wrong basic assumptions. It does not seem to stop such people from proclaiming their found truth as the only one and to simply not question how they arrived there.
So, I question not as such the sincerity of your belief, but the rationality of it.
I have provided notes for evaluating your blind tests for discrimination in theread as well as a suggestion for a simple, inexpensive homemade cable solution that could/should be used to compare "generic zipcord & interconnects" against as it tends to show a material difference.
How about you set up one more test, first evaluate the discrimiation of the test at the very least with polarity reversal in one stereo channel and stereo channel reversal and then compare the system wired fully with "generic" Cables against being wired with Cat 5 based interconnects and speakercables, correctly terminated.
As the cost for either solution is about the same (especially if you can get free throwaway ends of Cat5) there is no issue about money or effort or anything, it's a straight fair test, interested in only if there is a materially audible difference between "solid core litz" type cables and ordinary stranded cables.
My motivation is not contention. I merely question your evangelical zeal in trying to tell people "don't spend money on High End Cables", for whatever reasons and your extensive and repeat refusal to consider your methods and their results as potentially flawed.
You repeatedly use Phrases like tat quote below:
"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."
You make a direct tie in between money and audibility, though not per se saying that expensive cables are inaudible because they are expensive, but instead noting that people imagine hering differences because of the cost. Yet even people to whom the cost is not an issue (DIY) hear differences...
Yes it is my reason based on your repeat refusal to take two completely unconnected issues separatly and in turn and instead constantly muddeling them up. This tells me that to you the audibility is not the real issue, money is however. I cannot draw any other conclusion as you have not once been able to look at the two isses in separation, based on your writings.
Sorry about that. You should have perhaps written "To quote (or paraphrase) the "Church lady" from Saturday Night Live....".
Than all those of us who find watching that program (yes, we get it in Londra, the capital of the Dark Empire) a painfull challenge to even basic intelligence would have know how to take this. Alternatively please quote intelligent humor if you must (like Monty Python for example).
Actually, you crime is not believeing that cables do not make a difference. It is your intolerance and condescention for those who happen to know that your belief is wrong.
Rob Wynne's Rule of Tolerance:
"All religions are right, up to the point that they start insisting someone else is wrong."
Then could kindly separate unconnected issues and address the various issues I have raised, with regards to the test you conducted, or simply admit that while the test you have done convince you of something they any further applicability (as do my own that yieded opposite results) and that people should test for themselves in an openminded fashion and draw their own conclusions, rather than you supplying them with the only possible one and declaring everyone who is not along for the to be somewhat delueded (if you are charitable) ir a fraudster (if you are not chariable)?
Sayonara
The Paulinator said:
Well, you can of course do whatever you like. Yet if you wish to claim any reasonable "universal" applicability for your tests you must disclose the statistics used, the actual results and reasnable details about the test steup (to ensure the speakers used where reasonably free from distortion and compression, of reasnably controlled dispersion and used in an acoustic envioronment that provides a reasonable RT60 etc, as well as avoiding sources, recording selections and amplification that would prejudice results towards a "null" result).
Now I rarely if ever give a full disclosure of my statistics and data, simply because I do not claim universal applicability. I only note that the results are sufficient to convince me (and please note that I am a fair bit of a sceptic, but an openminded one) of the reality of the effects. I have repeatedly in this thread and previously in others at AA recommended certain approaches to blind testing using small sample numbers.
I have also recommended that for any really relevant test a very large sample size is required and one where both test each participating individual is "prescreened" for sensitivity (alternatively run the test with extremely large numbers of participants and use the top 10% as indicator for the "possible sensitivity limit" and the whole sample as indicator of a representative population average).
Such a study would literally require 100's of participants if not thousands (such as are applied for example in final rounds of double blind drugs tests) and would require someone in Academia with both will and time at her/his hands to implement and carry out. I would recommend a setup and process similar to that applied by Mr (now Dr. I believe) Ackermann in his recent test, details of which are described in the following Stereophile Article:
http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?203
The Paulinator said:
Well, first your above statement shows a profound lack of understanding of the abilities and limits of blind testing and somehow you bring again into the issue the subject of money, which has absolutely no place if we discuss the audibility of different cable "technologies".
Money comes in if you discuss the issue of "Value for Money", an area where I believe I have already agreed with you that most commercial High End Cables provide poor value for money. However the two issues have no connection whatsoever and mixing the two up shows very poor logic and science.
The Paulinator said:
My main objection to this was not the specification of Kimber but the fact that you again muddle up two completely separate and unconnected issues into one.
The Paulinator said:
Well. I know a lot of people who have found Jesus/Buddah/Mohamed and so on. Their belief sadly however is irational and based on incorrect reading of scripture distorted by politics and many other human frailties. Their belief may be in itself pure, but is irrational and founded on wrong basic assumptions. It does not seem to stop such people from proclaiming their found truth as the only one and to simply not question how they arrived there.
So, I question not as such the sincerity of your belief, but the rationality of it.
The Paulinator said:
I have provided notes for evaluating your blind tests for discrimination in theread as well as a suggestion for a simple, inexpensive homemade cable solution that could/should be used to compare "generic zipcord & interconnects" against as it tends to show a material difference.
How about you set up one more test, first evaluate the discrimiation of the test at the very least with polarity reversal in one stereo channel and stereo channel reversal and then compare the system wired fully with "generic" Cables against being wired with Cat 5 based interconnects and speakercables, correctly terminated.
As the cost for either solution is about the same (especially if you can get free throwaway ends of Cat5) there is no issue about money or effort or anything, it's a straight fair test, interested in only if there is a materially audible difference between "solid core litz" type cables and ordinary stranded cables.
The Paulinator said:
My motivation is not contention. I merely question your evangelical zeal in trying to tell people "don't spend money on High End Cables", for whatever reasons and your extensive and repeat refusal to consider your methods and their results as potentially flawed.
The Paulinator said:
You repeatedly use Phrases like tat quote below:
"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."
You make a direct tie in between money and audibility, though not per se saying that expensive cables are inaudible because they are expensive, but instead noting that people imagine hering differences because of the cost. Yet even people to whom the cost is not an issue (DIY) hear differences...
The Paulinator said:
Yes it is my reason based on your repeat refusal to take two completely unconnected issues separatly and in turn and instead constantly muddeling them up. This tells me that to you the audibility is not the real issue, money is however. I cannot draw any other conclusion as you have not once been able to look at the two isses in separation, based on your writings.
The Paulinator said:
Sorry about that. You should have perhaps written "To quote (or paraphrase) the "Church lady" from Saturday Night Live....".
Than all those of us who find watching that program (yes, we get it in Londra, the capital of the Dark Empire) a painfull challenge to even basic intelligence would have know how to take this. Alternatively please quote intelligent humor if you must (like Monty Python for example).
The Paulinator said:
Actually, you crime is not believeing that cables do not make a difference. It is your intolerance and condescention for those who happen to know that your belief is wrong.
Rob Wynne's Rule of Tolerance:
"All religions are right, up to the point that they start insisting someone else is wrong."
The Paulinator said:
Then could kindly separate unconnected issues and address the various issues I have raised, with regards to the test you conducted, or simply admit that while the test you have done convince you of something they any further applicability (as do my own that yieded opposite results) and that people should test for themselves in an openminded fashion and draw their own conclusions, rather than you supplying them with the only possible one and declaring everyone who is not along for the to be somewhat delueded (if you are charitable) ir a fraudster (if you are not chariable)?
Sayonara
I don't believe that what you have said about experimental design and validity for sensory research is quite true. Rather than get into a long, pointless debate here in church, I invite anyone who is interested to consider the differences between trying to establish a general sensitivity to a phenomenon and someone demonstrating a specific sensitivity to a phenomenon. 10 trials with one individual will allow us to say with better than 95% confidence that, at least for THIS individual, the null hypothesis can be ruled out.
For "spooky" phenomena, we haven't even crossed THAT threshold yet. There's no use testing thousands of people for sensitivity to a phenomenon that not even ONE person has yet demonstrated an ability to perceive. First things first- show us that ONE person with ONE hifi system can hear the difference between, say, silver and copper wires of low resistance in a controlled test.
For "spooky" phenomena, we haven't even crossed THAT threshold yet. There's no use testing thousands of people for sensitivity to a phenomenon that not even ONE person has yet demonstrated an ability to perceive. First things first- show us that ONE person with ONE hifi system can hear the difference between, say, silver and copper wires of low resistance in a controlled test.
I could not agree more with that last post. i have run many tests on MANY people and have not ONCE found someone who could consistently show that they could tell the difference.
Koinichiwa,
You have repeated this many times. Would you be kind enough to disclose the statistics used to evaluate your data to come to the conclusion that "no-one could consistently showed they could tell the difference" (paraphrased).
Also, did you ensure that test setup was sufficiently discriminative? What speakers where use, what was the room setup like. What was the system/room combos RT60? What was the speakers compression and distortion at te listening levels empolyed?
Sayonara
The Paulinator said:
You have repeated this many times. Would you be kind enough to disclose the statistics used to evaluate your data to come to the conclusion that "no-one could consistently showed they could tell the difference" (paraphrased).
Also, did you ensure that test setup was sufficiently discriminative? What speakers where use, what was the room setup like. What was the system/room combos RT60? What was the speakers compression and distortion at te listening levels empolyed?
Sayonara
Like I said in the original post, I worked at a high end audio shop where we had a listening room that was well equipped to keep room resonances at a minimum. The setup was a stack of Adcom components and a pair of Energy Veritas 1.8 floorstanding speakers (the old, huge ones, not the newer, lesser quality ones). I still beleive these speakers to be among the best ever made. I have never EVER heard a BETTER sounding speaker in any price range, only of equal or lesser quality. I did a MULTITUDE of tests on many many people, consisting of sets of 10 attempts to name which cable is which, using a Sony ES cd player with 2 sets of outputs so that changes between one cable and another could be instant using the preamp. After five attempts I switched the cables to the opposite connections in case one output was flawed for whatever reason. I used a pair of stock cables out of a cd player box as the "bad" pair, and used a few different high end cables for the "good" ones, including Monster Cable, Kimber, Goertz, Audioquest, etc. Usually after the 10 initial tests with a person I would do a few other things to attempt to give them one last chance to show that they could hear a difference. These people, many of the employees of the store, were often angry at me for showing them that there was no audible difference. I have seen repeatedly that people tend to get defensive and angry when they realize this, or when I tell them that I could prove that they could not hear a difference. Many people refuse to take any tests, as if they don't want to know if they can hear a difference or not.
Feel free to read my original post for more detail. It is the first post on the thread.
I know that you are going to nitpick about many things with my method, but regardless, I find this method MORE than sufficient, considering how obvious the differences between cables are supposed to be. I always read and hear people describe extravagant differences between cables. I do not feel the need to get so incredible scientific about it. It should not be necessary. If they can't hear a difference in these conditions, they probably won't hear it anywhere else.
Feel free to read my original post for more detail. It is the first post on the thread.
I know that you are going to nitpick about many things with my method, but regardless, I find this method MORE than sufficient, considering how obvious the differences between cables are supposed to be. I always read and hear people describe extravagant differences between cables. I do not feel the need to get so incredible scientific about it. It should not be necessary. If they can't hear a difference in these conditions, they probably won't hear it anywhere else.
Possibly Flawed Test.
Are they in parallel, or are they driven by seperate output stages ?.
Eric.
What is the wiring arrangement of these outputs ?.
Are they in parallel, or are they driven by seperate output stages ?.
Eric.
Re: Possibly Flawed Test.
Shouldn't make any difference, I think, if they are driven by seperate output stages then that has been compensated for by the swapping of the leads as indicated in the tests, and if they are parallelled, then the hopefully high impedance of the inputs on the pre shouldn't have pulled down the signal level to any real extent, and in any case, both outputs would have been affected the same.
Were there too many commas in that sentence?
🙂
mrfeedback said:
Shouldn't make any difference, I think, if they are driven by seperate output stages then that has been compensated for by the swapping of the leads as indicated in the tests, and if they are parallelled, then the hopefully high impedance of the inputs on the pre shouldn't have pulled down the signal level to any real extent, and in any case, both outputs would have been affected the same.
Were there too many commas in that sentence?
🙂
Sy, thanks for thinking of me. 😉
Al,
If there are two separate ouput stages then your test is valid.
If however there is one ouput stage driving both cables, then the shunt capacitance of both cables will be loading the output, and the effects of this would likely swamp differences between cables, or indeed make both cables sound the same.
Before we have established these facts your assertion is not holding weight just yet.
Eric.
Al,
If there are two separate ouput stages then your test is valid.
If however there is one ouput stage driving both cables, then the shunt capacitance of both cables will be loading the output, and the effects of this would likely swamp differences between cables, or indeed make both cables sound the same.
Before we have established these facts your assertion is not holding weight just yet.
Eric.
The Paulinator said:
Yes, but were those two sets of outputs hooked up in parallel with each other or was there a separate transisor/opamp for each of the four output connections?
mrfeedback said:
Sorry, but this is BS. Everytime we read about these fantastic differences, NOBODY asks about the speaker, the amp, the music, the mains cable bla bla. But if somebody comes up with a well reasoned and tried method and shows that the difference cannot be heard, all of a sudden many people find a lot of "flaws" in the method. Eric, even if you are right, that the cap loading swamps the differences (which I don't believe) that EXACTLY shows that there IS NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE, doesn't it?
Jan Didden
Koinichiwa,
Actually, I do.
Exactly that is what I am disputing. That the methode was "well reasoned and tried" AND that it showed differences cannot be heard.
Hence my request for details of the statistics (which is the much more relevant side, admittedly) and setup. Without knowing exactly the components I cannot well criticise them. But neither Energy nor Adcom would strike me as purveyors of anything more than lower mid-fi, the enthusiastic endorsement by Paulinator nonwithstanding. And comments of "resonace treatement" give me little more confidence.
So, I am asking again, where the speakers used known or provavble imbued with the following qualities:
1) Low distortion (< 1% THD @ 96db/3m above 100Hz)
2) Low compression (< 1db @ 96db/3m)
3) Controlled dispersion (directivity index 6db constant 500Hz - 5KHz and no more than 10db @ 10KHz+)
4) Reasonable impulse coherence
Yes or no?
Further, was the roomsetup such that an Rt60 of no more than 0.3s below 100Hz and no more than 0.1s above 300Hz was observable? Was the system and ambient generated noise lower than 30dbA?
While we are at it, where the electronics used provavble free from any forms of transient distortions and provable free or very low on any forms on "noisefloor modulation" type intermodulations?
Was the testsetup "calibrated" by testing differences that have been previously established as being definitly audible?
(all the above would be my core requirements for a Studio Monitor installation)
Where the statistics used adjusted to take account of the increased risk of type B errors in small sample sizes?
True, but if it was so, the test would only show that it showed no audible difference because the test was flawed. I would not per se argue that using two CD-Player outputs with two cables would cause audible differences between cables to be masked, but some cables (badly designed ones at that) will cause interactions with a wide range of gear that can be unfortunate.
So the question remains, was the test done to a level of care and accuracy that allows it to be considered in ANY different light to the casual test of others who claim to hear differences?
I personally think not. In fact, NO published DBT on the topic of cables I have come across EVER has been (so far).
And again, I have not even addressed the Human side of the equation.
Sayonara
janneman said:
Actually, I do.
janneman said:
Exactly that is what I am disputing. That the methode was "well reasoned and tried" AND that it showed differences cannot be heard.
Hence my request for details of the statistics (which is the much more relevant side, admittedly) and setup. Without knowing exactly the components I cannot well criticise them. But neither Energy nor Adcom would strike me as purveyors of anything more than lower mid-fi, the enthusiastic endorsement by Paulinator nonwithstanding. And comments of "resonace treatement" give me little more confidence.
So, I am asking again, where the speakers used known or provavble imbued with the following qualities:
1) Low distortion (< 1% THD @ 96db/3m above 100Hz)
2) Low compression (< 1db @ 96db/3m)
3) Controlled dispersion (directivity index 6db constant 500Hz - 5KHz and no more than 10db @ 10KHz+)
4) Reasonable impulse coherence
Yes or no?
Further, was the roomsetup such that an Rt60 of no more than 0.3s below 100Hz and no more than 0.1s above 300Hz was observable? Was the system and ambient generated noise lower than 30dbA?
While we are at it, where the electronics used provavble free from any forms of transient distortions and provable free or very low on any forms on "noisefloor modulation" type intermodulations?
Was the testsetup "calibrated" by testing differences that have been previously established as being definitly audible?
(all the above would be my core requirements for a Studio Monitor installation)
Where the statistics used adjusted to take account of the increased risk of type B errors in small sample sizes?
janneman said:
True, but if it was so, the test would only show that it showed no audible difference because the test was flawed. I would not per se argue that using two CD-Player outputs with two cables would cause audible differences between cables to be masked, but some cables (badly designed ones at that) will cause interactions with a wide range of gear that can be unfortunate.
So the question remains, was the test done to a level of care and accuracy that allows it to be considered in ANY different light to the casual test of others who claim to hear differences?
I personally think not. In fact, NO published DBT on the topic of cables I have come across EVER has been (so far).
And again, I have not even addressed the Human side of the equation.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang, you have got to be kidding me. It sounds like you are trying to put as many bumps into the equation as you can so that whenever someone does a test and fails to hear a difference, you can bet they didn't meet one of your rediculously nitpicky requirements and you can say the test is null and void.
Why is all that crap necessary? Do most people sit down and figure out all of that before they do a casual listen? The way I hear some people rave about the differences between cables, you should be able to hear the difference in a sewer with a pair of computer speakers running off a portable AM radio with bamboo shoots under your fingernails.
Give your filabustering a rest.
Why is all that crap necessary? Do most people sit down and figure out all of that before they do a casual listen? The way I hear some people rave about the differences between cables, you should be able to hear the difference in a sewer with a pair of computer speakers running off a portable AM radio with bamboo shoots under your fingernails.
Give your filabustering a rest.
You know what Kuei Yang Wang? The more I read your posts, the more I think you will never really care what tests are performed or how they are performed or what the results are. If someone didn't hear a diference, the testing process must be flawed.
If people claim to hear a difference in a moderate listening environment, then i should be able to perform a few tests in either that same environment or a better one, and if a person connot consistently label the cable they just heard, the difference must not be as audible (if at all) as they had previously raved.
But if someone were to show me in a normal environment that they can consistently tell the difference, I wouldn't hesitate to believe.
If people claim to hear a difference in a moderate listening environment, then i should be able to perform a few tests in either that same environment or a better one, and if a person connot consistently label the cable they just heard, the difference must not be as audible (if at all) as they had previously raved.
But if someone were to show me in a normal environment that they can consistently tell the difference, I wouldn't hesitate to believe.
The Paulinator said:
Exactly. BUT, if someone reports he hears a difference with cable XYZ, everybody accepts it without questioning anything, uncritical, at face value. Talking about wishfull thinking!
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.