I'm not the smartest fellow in the world, but I could swear that this was something Jan wrote, not me.
Like I said, read over my suggested protocol and criticize that, if you like- making up something and throwing rocks at your own conception is unlikely to get you anywhere.
Like I said, read over my suggested protocol and criticize that, if you like- making up something and throwing rocks at your own conception is unlikely to get you anywhere.
If the protocol is too difficult to read, Google translator will give it to you in acceptable Greek, I'm sure.
My post 9519 was a reply to your post 9518,your reply to Andre's post 9517.I hve not mentioned anything about your protocol.You were complaining that no one is replying to you,and I wanted to point out that you are not replying either,many times,for example to the things I asked before,and now again in post 9519.I try to avoid translators,since I want to improve my english.
Rightyho, so the tweeter and woofer are on separate passive paths. Got it, that was what I wanted c\lariufied (and thanks bconnor too)
Check out a good PHL based system if you can. Only say that cAUSE i AM BIASED AND RUN phl (arrggh caps lock)
Is curly still here???😕😕 For the umpteenth time, use the persons own system and music. Why NOT maximise the chances of having a successful test? Indeed, find the music most suited to showing differences too whilst we are at it.
It does seem to be going quite a bit smoother since curly is on vacation...maybe because a discussion is now able to happen?
Which is why it is useless for me..or brett..or bconnor or doomlord for example, to do a cable test and report back.
We need someone who feels they can, in fact, hear cable influences.
Cmon andy g, you are our only hope! Let's get something valuable out of this thread. (anyone want to pm him and point him to the last couple of ages?? He won't respond to me I am sure)
I miss your point??!! I know it has been addressed by others, but I don't get what you are saying at all, sorry.
All it does is prove why you need DBTs. In fact, it is an example of why you need dbts. You ARE correct, The unspoken and false beliefs of the testers was enough to invalidate the test results, as, for the second round, the testers had been given data about the intellectual capabilities of the groups, that prior knowledge influenced the test.
He gave that as an example of how unconsciously influence can be transmitted, and so used that to show his point Double-blind testing is required because the tester almost invariably (and unpredictably) influences the test subject(s). One of many well-known examples occurred when a group of psychology students tested many subjects for IQ.
Unless you are making another point I simply cannot comprehend???
They were NOT double blind, that IS the point he was making. He TOLD us that the administrators of the test knew about the groups, and showed how that knowledge influenced the test.
Sorry, I am certainly 😕😕 about what point you are trying to make.
I think you misread the paragraph to be frank.
It may help if I re-write the quote (added in italics)
The ABX box is designed to determine how reliably the listener can detect differences, and we use it to prevent preconceptions.
Preconceptions affect perception and conclusions [in other words, not only is seeing believing, but believing is also seeing-Ed.], hence the need for single blindness. That way the person being tested does not know the identity, and so can not have preconceptions.
In addition to the need for single blind (listener being unaware of identity) we also need the test to be double blind (tester being unaware of identity also). Double-blind testing is required because the tester almost invariably (and unpredictably) influences the test subject(s).
One of many well-known examples of the tester influencing the outcome of a test occurred when a group of psychology students tested many subjects for IQ.
The subjects were impartially tested for IQ beforehand, and then sorted into two groups with similar IQ ranges. The testers were told that group A was exceptionally intelligent while group B was not. For each group, the testers were to read the same script while administering the test.
The result was that the group touted as smart to the test-givers scored statistically significantly better than the group labeled stupid.
Somehow the testers conveyed their expectations about performance while reading the same instructions to the two groups, and the groups responded to the cues.
Well, the testers certainly knew the subjects were going to do an IQ test, whether or not they knew the exact questions seems to be a minor point. No, we assume they could not prompt the answers, but they were NOT blind as the comparator...as they ''knew'' whether the group was smart or dumb.
The point is not even like a cable test (is it A or B), simply that preconceived knowledge (whatever it is, not just a binary set of choices) influences the outcome.
Last edited:
Sy, would you PLEASE provide the post # that has your protocols?
To answer an earlier sorta question, of course I would send the cables to you for evaluation. It would be up to you to compare them to the orange anaconda's. My thrust is to eliminate the noise about "which" sighted cable and which differently made cable" will provide the best sound. I am just after a noticeable, audible difference.
I want to eliminate all of that "noise" and just use one type of wire, one type of dielectric, one type of end piece and differing amounts of the one type of dielectric, all to be hidden under that white cotton sleeve. Does this need a DBT, or would a casual , only the person exchanging the cables and doing the listening test provide us with reliable information on, if differing amounts of dielectric are audible?
Does Morgan's amplifier / preamplifier have a proper poured ground plane? Were his speakers also driven by a fully differential connection?
Bud
To answer an earlier sorta question, of course I would send the cables to you for evaluation. It would be up to you to compare them to the orange anaconda's. My thrust is to eliminate the noise about "which" sighted cable and which differently made cable" will provide the best sound. I am just after a noticeable, audible difference.
I want to eliminate all of that "noise" and just use one type of wire, one type of dielectric, one type of end piece and differing amounts of the one type of dielectric, all to be hidden under that white cotton sleeve. Does this need a DBT, or would a casual , only the person exchanging the cables and doing the listening test provide us with reliable information on, if differing amounts of dielectric are audible?
Does Morgan's amplifier / preamplifier have a proper poured ground plane? Were his speakers also driven by a fully differential connection?
Bud
You're asking me a question about a made-up protocol, not an actual suggested one, and (though I'm impressed with your English) you've asked it in a garbled manner that I can't decode.
I can't really figure out what you have in mind. I can tell you that if you want to do a valid test and avoid the issues of switchboxes, follow the protocol I suggested.
I can't really figure out what you have in mind. I can tell you that if you want to do a valid test and avoid the issues of switchboxes, follow the protocol I suggested.
TerryJ
No Terry, your plan was successful and you apparently finally goaded him into a position the moderators thought dangerous to his health and equally dangerous to the impartiality of this forum. Please don't be so disingenuous, we know you are a crafty fellow.
Bud
No Terry, your plan was successful and you apparently finally goaded him into a position the moderators thought dangerous to his health and equally dangerous to the impartiality of this forum. Please don't be so disingenuous, we know you are a crafty fellow.
Bud
Sorry terry, I'm not chasing this any further. The language is plain. The IQ test was double-blind exactly in the same way as the Meyer ABX test. Neither administrator presumably knew the answers to specific trials, both had clear expectations of the results. The only difference is the IQ administrator's expectations weren't communicated verbally, Meyer is well known for doing otherwise. It can't get any simpler.
No, his speakers were driven by a p-to-p wired SE triode amp (the Scrapbox Challenge from his book). Very different setup from my home one.
I'm sure that Panikos will be happy to search the 500 pages of this thread for you. I spent quite a bit of time detailing how a cable test should be done, then he and Joshua (for whom it was written) just blew it off.
Sy,
I had a beer last night and am still not clear minded, sorry.
1. I make up three cable sets. Each uses the same dielectric coated 140 strands of #40 coil winding wire, in a Litz weave configuration.
2.) One set with no dielectric other than the coil wire and cotton sleeve.
3.)One set with the amount of extra low dielectric constant shrink tube I think provides a pleasing change from no extra dielectric material.
4.)One set with enough extra dielectric material that I find it unpleasant to listen to.
5.) all dielectrics hidden under a white, woven cotton sleeve, with the only indicator of difference to be a tiny amount of different color attached to each set.
6.) likely both interconnect and speaker cables in each form.
These sets to be sent to skeptics and believers for comments upon audible differences, if any can be found from using a specific CD to be sent along with the cables. The CD to have different music and possibly sound effects to portray
1.) performance space with sharply transient sounds located within it.
2.)single instrument (piano) with rich harmonics and widely different fortissimo in playing style, during the pieces.
3.) large scale choral groups with clear placement in a sound field.
4.)monaural recording of a New Orleans Jazz band, for fun and spatial inferences, from an alleged single spatial source.
All provided to find out if the amount of dielectric material can be "heard" as a contributor or detractor to the character of the individual tracks, from one cable set to another. The specific character questions should be agreed upon before the sets are sent around and findings provided. Then, if there was a large enough % of listeners who, in their own systems, found that audible differences existed, try to talk Ed Simmons into testing the cable sets to see what objective data could be found and then to see if we can find correlations between subjective and objective findings.
Hope this is less garbled.
Bud
I had a beer last night and am still not clear minded, sorry.
1. I make up three cable sets. Each uses the same dielectric coated 140 strands of #40 coil winding wire, in a Litz weave configuration.
2.) One set with no dielectric other than the coil wire and cotton sleeve.
3.)One set with the amount of extra low dielectric constant shrink tube I think provides a pleasing change from no extra dielectric material.
4.)One set with enough extra dielectric material that I find it unpleasant to listen to.
5.) all dielectrics hidden under a white, woven cotton sleeve, with the only indicator of difference to be a tiny amount of different color attached to each set.
6.) likely both interconnect and speaker cables in each form.
These sets to be sent to skeptics and believers for comments upon audible differences, if any can be found from using a specific CD to be sent along with the cables. The CD to have different music and possibly sound effects to portray
1.) performance space with sharply transient sounds located within it.
2.)single instrument (piano) with rich harmonics and widely different fortissimo in playing style, during the pieces.
3.) large scale choral groups with clear placement in a sound field.
4.)monaural recording of a New Orleans Jazz band, for fun and spatial inferences, from an alleged single spatial source.
All provided to find out if the amount of dielectric material can be "heard" as a contributor or detractor to the character of the individual tracks, from one cable set to another. The specific character questions should be agreed upon before the sets are sent around and findings provided. Then, if there was a large enough % of listeners who, in their own systems, found that audible differences existed, try to talk Ed Simmons into testing the cable sets to see what objective data could be found and then to see if we can find correlations between subjective and objective findings.
Hope this is less garbled.
Bud
Last edited:
Twas a joke, I knew he was not here. He has evidently been banned, so how could he still be here?
As to the rest. I got him banned?? Wow, how did I do that? Ask him questions and expect answer, was that how?? And when he answered yet did not answer, I simply showed him how his posts vary depending an where he was at at any one point, is that how?
Sorry bzzt, I think you will find that CURLY got curly banned. (that the mods accepted my monetary bribe we'll just quietly leave to one side yeah?)
Anyway, tbh, you are the second person who has told me that I got curly banned. That can't be true can it? It was certainly not my intent and I am really sorry that he was banned, even more so if it WAS my 'fault'.
In any case, I could not have predicted me asking him question would lead to him getting banned.
Maybe it was not the questions but the responses that were at fault?
I am sorry then. I think you have completely got it wrong. Unless I do not understand your point still, and this answer did nothing to change that.
Agreed. Just as Doom Lords actions got him binned for two weeks. TerryJ was obviously not "across the line", nor were Sy or many others, who asked him to provide anything other than subjective information so that the rest of us could utilize his scheme. There was certainly a wide range of "civilized" behavior shown, to a man who I though was sincere in his belief in his own honesty. Unfortunately, subjective opinions do not allow for unemotional responses, to what can only be viewed as attacks, very personal attacks at that, when that belief in self honesty is questioned.
I would have hoped for a bit more sensitivity from purely objective contributors, but can understand that lack.
Bud
Oh, was wondering what happened to him as well!! How do you know these things bud? are you 'in the loop', cause there was nothing in the thread that gave us that data. (not worried if you are, just curious how you know as the thread does not tell us)
In any case, prior to this revelation all we got was the 'one-sided' report that 'only' curly was banned. It is just a bit more accurate to state that BOTH of them were banned ??? Otherwise it does sound like persecution of curly.
Do you have an arguement for this not being illusion/inaccuracy? I have lots of mono source material, mostly old blues 78's never sought to have any spatial info from them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.