You must have missed the posts arguing the goal wasn't to determine if a difference is audible (being too scientific I think was the charge) but whether it's to some arbitrary Curly/ad copy level, or that the listening panel needs representation from a pool of subjects pre-disposed towards null results who, presumably, wouldn't make a genuine effort since they already know the answer that saves humanity. The latter unfortunately isn't hyperbole.
If you want to do a test, I suggest you start with interconnects, as I believe that you can get matched RLC easier than for speaker cables.
I suggest you make them yourselves. Use hard drawn copper wire for one set and soft drawn silver for the other. The copper conductor will need to be a bit thicker to get the same R. Use a braided cotton, teflon, heatshrink pvc or whatever magic insulator for the center conductor insulator. Pay attention because I think the thicker copper center conductor will need a bit thicker insulation to get the same C.
Cover this with copper braid that is connected to the send side connectors shield only. Use a second insulated piece of wire to go from the send connector's shield to the receive connectors shield. Insulate the first braided shield with more tubing or heatshrink, then cover this with an outer braided shield that is also connected to the send connector only. be sure the inner and outer braids are only attached at the send connector. I then use tech-flex for an outer jacket. It comes in colors and makes cable ID easy.
I would use all reasonable quality gold plated connectors for both sets of cables to rule out any oxidation effects. Be sure to avoid overheating the connectors during soldering. I suggest 63/37 solder. Be sure the tip is clean and avoid any black gunk being formed during the soldering process. This is organic garbage... You may wish to clean the flux with pure alcohol. Do not use the stuff for rubbing as that contains other oils. I would not use a stronger solvent as that may affect the plastics of the connectors.
I suggest you make a dozen cables of each type. The measure them for RLC and pick two groups of four that match the closest. Number these so that they always are used in the same place. I.E. Left CD to preamp or R preamp to power amp.
Be sure to use deoxit on all of the connectors. This should be applied 1/2 hour before the start of the test. You probably do not want to use it after that as it may influence the tests.
I also recommend that you use a Class A power amplifier into a higher efficiency loudspeaker. Most of the cable distortion I have measured is a low level effect. If there is greatly increased distortion form your listening setup at low levels this may mask the effect you are looking for.
It is my OPINION that this will give you the best chance to determine if conductors characteristics are able to influence perceived sound quality, imaging, etc.
I will be very curious as to if any differences can be heard.
I suggest you make them yourselves. Use hard drawn copper wire for one set and soft drawn silver for the other. The copper conductor will need to be a bit thicker to get the same R. Use a braided cotton, teflon, heatshrink pvc or whatever magic insulator for the center conductor insulator. Pay attention because I think the thicker copper center conductor will need a bit thicker insulation to get the same C.
Cover this with copper braid that is connected to the send side connectors shield only. Use a second insulated piece of wire to go from the send connector's shield to the receive connectors shield. Insulate the first braided shield with more tubing or heatshrink, then cover this with an outer braided shield that is also connected to the send connector only. be sure the inner and outer braids are only attached at the send connector. I then use tech-flex for an outer jacket. It comes in colors and makes cable ID easy.
I would use all reasonable quality gold plated connectors for both sets of cables to rule out any oxidation effects. Be sure to avoid overheating the connectors during soldering. I suggest 63/37 solder. Be sure the tip is clean and avoid any black gunk being formed during the soldering process. This is organic garbage... You may wish to clean the flux with pure alcohol. Do not use the stuff for rubbing as that contains other oils. I would not use a stronger solvent as that may affect the plastics of the connectors.
I suggest you make a dozen cables of each type. The measure them for RLC and pick two groups of four that match the closest. Number these so that they always are used in the same place. I.E. Left CD to preamp or R preamp to power amp.
Be sure to use deoxit on all of the connectors. This should be applied 1/2 hour before the start of the test. You probably do not want to use it after that as it may influence the tests.
I also recommend that you use a Class A power amplifier into a higher efficiency loudspeaker. Most of the cable distortion I have measured is a low level effect. If there is greatly increased distortion form your listening setup at low levels this may mask the effect you are looking for.
It is my OPINION that this will give you the best chance to determine if conductors characteristics are able to influence perceived sound quality, imaging, etc.
I will be very curious as to if any differences can be heard.
Last edited:
rdf, I 100% agree that any test have a very specific goal in mind and be structured to test for that goal. If the question to be answered, "Can Listener A, who claims audible differences, actually hear those differences?" the test structure will be quite different than, say, "Can the average listener hear those differences?" Some dozens of pages back, I gave a stage-gate approach to that structure, and certainly the first gate is, "Is the subject pre-disposed to NOT hear the differences in question?" In which case, why bother with that particular test?
I find the claims of pressure, unnaturalness, immorality, and mopery by those who have never actually done a blind test hilarious.
I find the claims of pressure, unnaturalness, immorality, and mopery by those who have never actually done a blind test hilarious.
Then don't do it that way. Use YOUR system, YOUR music, YOUR time.
Why do you guys always come up with very unrealistic DB tests and then say, see, not good? 'the way these tests normally seems done'? Misleading at best.
jd
If I find something that is a truth in audio and the rest of the world doesn't realize it I would call that an "edge". I am not so much trying to convince the world of anything with my experiments. I am more concerned when it comes down to it with my own perception.
I missed that, my attention must have been focused on something my employer wanted done. 😉 No disagreement there, Randi wouldn't make an ideal dowsing test subject.
I still don't get the reason we disagree on that one. Isn't it exactly what Meyer is saying here?
The unspoken and false beliefs of the testers was enough to invalidate the test results, what does that say about ABX proponent/testers who make a name for themselves trumpeting null results?
Last edited:
Stuart,
Given you have time for doing so, could you post an article regarding DBT requirements for audio purposes?
I know you've explained it in little bits and pieces already, but a complete article about the subject, would make many of the coming discussions regarding audio components a lot more productive.
Magura 🙂
Given you have time for doing so, could you post an article regarding DBT requirements for audio purposes?
I know you've explained it in little bits and pieces already, but a complete article about the subject, would make many of the coming discussions regarding audio components a lot more productive.
Magura 🙂
Funny how we can look at the same test and see something completely different. For me, the 'IQ test' proofs that people can be influenced by factors having nothing to do with what's to be tested: the outcome of your IQ test is influenced by what you think people think of you.
IOW, it reinforces the need for control of all extraneous factors.
jd
That's the whole point of DOUBLE blind. It would be nice if "believers" ran some valid tests, but that hasn't happened in 30 years. Or, when it's been done, the results were not pleasing to them and were trumpeted as a refutation of the controlled test methods that are accepted and validated by the other 99.999% of the sensory research world.
Magura, yeah, I'm thinking it may be getting time to do that.
Jan, I believe John were talking about the way these tests are normally done by the guys with white coats, my comments was also aimed at that.
I've said several times I have no problem with a DBT if it is done correctly.
Then describe one working example of DBT that you think is correct. I'm sure it will clear the muddy waters.
Same questions for all those sitting on the fence and criticizing other people honest and hard work. I'm personally happy with what SY suggested as a valid test.
How were the IQ tests administered not double-blind to the same degree as a Meyer test? Guys:
The testers couldn't have known what questions subjects were answering, they couldn't directly prompt answers, they were as blind as Meyer next to the ABX comparator. As stated explicitly, clearly and unambiguously by Meyer, unspoken tester expectation alone invalidated the result. How can this be read otherwise?
Last edited:
Just curious, have you actually read any peer-reviewed papers on this? If so, which ones, and what were your specific issues with their published protocols?
rdf, with an ABX box, I don't see how Meyer (or was it Moran?) could influence the test subjects in one direction or the other short of my earlier reductio with the police whistle. I'm not clear on the analogy- the IQ tests are a performance measure, the ABX test is just "can you hear the difference between A and B." Unless you're suggesting that the presence of a skeptic in the area somehow turns the test subjects deaf?
In any event, I still don't see a single attempt by the faith-based community to run the same sorts of tests, but with a minister administer.
It is not meant as criticism, rather suggestions to reflect what I've found to be important for me. I've stated many times what I believe is important and also what I see as shortcomings.
@rdf:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1974-11940-001&CFID=4765857&CFTOKEN=74790564
Kinda the opposite of that unattributed anecdote.
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1974-11940-001&CFID=4765857&CFTOKEN=74790564
Kinda the opposite of that unattributed anecdote.
Sorry, again I missed the police whistle example. Will search. You can agree or not with Meyer's explanation but I don't see how it can be read otherwise. While unfortunately he didn't provide enough detail to determine if Group A did better than previously tested, Group B worse, or both, it's a reasonable interpretation that the Group B administrator's skepticism about his subject's intellectual abilities were sufficient while reading a standardized script to prompt them to incorrect answers.
On the second point, it does suggest the goal needs more clarification. Is the test to determine if the (presumed) ability to hear differences in cables is innate or learned? If my dim recollections of child mental development are correct and even concepts like 'volume' are learned, I vote the latter.
edit: SY, link not working
edit2: in Firefox only, works in IE8
On the second point, it does suggest the goal needs more clarification. Is the test to determine if the (presumed) ability to hear differences in cables is innate or learned? If my dim recollections of child mental development are correct and even concepts like 'volume' are learned, I vote the latter.
edit: SY, link not working
edit2: in Firefox only, works in IE8
Last edited:
Mostly only those referenced here.
My issues is that unknown equipment of unknown quality setup to unknown standards (by people who say these differences doesn't exist) in an unknown environment will most likely make it impossible to hear anything but large differences. Add to that using listeners with unknown (rather 'no' since most use students) listening experience and listening to unknown music is a good recipe to get zero results. Heck, some even use group test's, clearly they know nothing about staging, let alone stage focus. All that even before mentioning the use of switch boxes. 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.