Not at all. It illustrates that you really don't know what you may perceive when you do anecdotal, uncontrolled tests. The idea that you are aware of your biases, which way they lean and possibly can compensate for them is incorrect, to say the least. Earlier you said you 'understand all this'. If that was the case, you wouldn't post the above.
jd
This 'extraordinary' claim thing is nonsense. We are not taking about flying saucers here, and even if we were, it would still be nonsense. What we are talking about is a difference between QUALITY wire, of different construction, geometry, material, purity, etc. Many of us hear differences in SOME wires, and we often reject the really troublesome ones, such as POLK cable, that promoted instability in many power amps (30 years ago). I read a strong rejection of this cable in 'The Absolute Sound' written at that time.
In every test of this type, the 'conclusion' is almost always set in advance, and the trade-offs always made to not hear any differences. What is the point?
In every test of this type, the 'conclusion' is almost always set in advance, and the trade-offs always made to not hear any differences. What is the point?
What is the point of 'quality' wire if you can only hear a difference if you first look which is which?
jd
You have to start with wire where differences are noticed, not scrap wire made any which way. It would be like testing tire differences on junker cars. It would be difficult to sort the differences, due to worn and poorly designed suspensions and weight ratios. With wires, you would have to start with something where sonic differences with a sighted observation are obvious, then go to blind, to satisfy the hear-nothings.
Even this is problematic, but at least on target, IF any real results are sought.
Even this is problematic, but at least on target, IF any real results are sought.
Irrational nonsense that discounts any possibility of self-knowledge in principle and creates a mockery of the concept of bias and preference by discarding any possibility of conscious bias. Twisting in the wind. SY hates wine.
At least with tires, the tire manufactures do blind driving tests. That is the the tires are covered when the test driver gets in and out of the car. He drivers a test course that has timed and subjective segments. After the test drive he writes a report on the subjective segments. Later in the day they may retest a reference set of tires to see if the driver is consistent.
hey, whaddya know, I agree with john curl!!
AFAIR that is exactly what we have urged TG to do. Find a pair of disparate cables that he is very comfortable with identifying, and practice practice practice.
Once he is satisfied with all aspects, then we can do the test. But first off he needs to find cables he is certain of.
I think he even had ones in mind?? Anyway, where is TG? I somehow still have the feeling that it will not go ahead. Hope I am wrong.
If it does not go ahead, because TG pulls out, I wonder where the 'blame' will be laid?? (good word blame, use it as often as I can haha)
Because you claim it changed the sound waves in the soundfield (not what you "heard" only in your mind) and FR was not responsible. That is a claim without basis, unless you measured FR...and found no change.
Lets see your LCR measurements of all cables involved (rather than assume the value of C you claim). Did you take any?
Precisely. Which is why you are unaware of all the problems I listed (can't hear them, even though every one is real and measurable, not imagined) and simply evading the conclusions by avoiding answering them. Which means that:
is clearly false. If you could, you would be able to hear all the problems I pointed out, like I can.
So you read the Cordell article, saw clearly why your system clips and decided to evade the conclusion. The example is illogical, because more dynamic range was not the only difference in the system comparison. IOW, the greater dynamic range was not the reason (Unless of course you listen only to compressed pop music). Dynamic range limitations are audible (to those with sufficient hearing capability) and one of the many reasons why one can tell whether you are listening to live music or an reproduction system. Clearly realism is not one of your goals. But as you say, it pleases you. It certainly would be below my requirements for fidelity.
Thanks for reversing your position and accepting reality. Now all we need is proof of the claim. Zero so far...and zero willingness to test for proof. Quite the conundrum for you believers eh? 😉
Wrong. Your claim of Shanefield asking for single blind was baseless, no matter how you now try to spin it. You know what he was anticipating (from you) by "disinterested" tester. This has nothing to do with your flawed statements about sighted tests being problematic, for any other reason than them being....sighted. As I pointed out. A conclusion you would rather evade 😉.
Yes, good point Andre. An amp rated at 100W RMS would be expected to do 200 watts on the peaks. I would still like to see the peak value represent the peak power because that's where the amp is going to clip.
As stated in the article, it's a matter of semantics.
Hmmm... I guess I don't see it that way. But it is going to depend on how fast the peak meter is - and how fast you want it to be. Maybe most aren't very fast. Like my mechanical meters. But with one that can catch the peak of a 10K sinewave, I'd expect the peaks of any sinewave under 10K to show twice the power of the sine average. Cause, you know, they're the peaks. =)
With a slow meter, the peaks would be rounded a bit, for sure - I don't want to see that needle oscillating at 1KHz! In fact, I don't think I really could.
I think overall frequency response, compared between wires, would be more apt. And, fortunately, much easier to do.
Pano, normally, there's a peak-hold circuit, so you needn't worry about getting dizzy from a 1kHz meter oscillation. 😀
i think that when you go to buy a cable, look at what your actually getting, i dont agree with paying 100$ for a set of rca cables because it has the name monster on it.
i think that you get what you pay for.. till a certain point. obviously if you buy wires at the dollar store they're going to be crap.
certain things that are ''extra'' on wires and cables are good.. like gold plated ends to resist corrosion.. magnetic shielding.. things like that.
but on the other hand, i would never buy name brand straight wire ( power wire/ speaker wire/ plain wire) its pointless! when i can go to my local auto parts store and buy fine welding wire which is just as good if not better!
so basically, it depends what your buying, but buy only what you need, dont buy names or fancy gimicks
i think that you get what you pay for.. till a certain point. obviously if you buy wires at the dollar store they're going to be crap.
certain things that are ''extra'' on wires and cables are good.. like gold plated ends to resist corrosion.. magnetic shielding.. things like that.
but on the other hand, i would never buy name brand straight wire ( power wire/ speaker wire/ plain wire) its pointless! when i can go to my local auto parts store and buy fine welding wire which is just as good if not better!
so basically, it depends what your buying, but buy only what you need, dont buy names or fancy gimicks
Please look the definition for single and double blind up.
It doesn´t matter what i´d suggest for switching, it´s just a matter of definitions. A disinterested person is not an unknowing person.
Unfortunately the terms were used with different meanings in other fields; wine tasting is an example, instead of introducing of new terms they decided to use the well defined with new meaning, what causes sometimes confusion.
I am sorry, but i did not reverse my position. It is the same as before; a claim is a claim is a claim.....
Wishes
It´s not semantics, it is just:
"I´ve heard something " (is a claim)
and
"I´ve heard nothing" (is a claim too)
That is just formal logic.
Wishes
P.S. Afair you introduced the term "believer" , i only used it because i thougth it would make it more clear what i meant. I don´t like it, because the distinction is wrong, as the "nonbeliever" usually has strong believes too that he doesn´t like to question. 🙂
Last edited:
Normally your description of such an answer would include "dancing furiously" . 🙂
First of all, it was your argument, that the negative tests could not all suffer from the same problem.
I asked a simple question, and you avoided the answer as otherwise you would had have to admit, that most (if not all) tests, you were referring to, suffer from the same problem indeed.
Is it so hard to admit, that there are some weak points in the usual testing routine and that the protocols should be improved for the next try?
Second, i´ve stated clearly before, that i had never done a blind test on cables.
Wishes
Last edited:
I indeed make that argument. And still do. The "problem" you cite is irrelevant and ad hoc.
Now... it seems to me that you've agreed that ordinary and extraordinary claims may be treated differently. Is that a correct understanding? Yes or no.
Now... it seems to me that you've agreed that ordinary and extraordinary claims may be treated differently. Is that a correct understanding? Yes or no.
Let´s see, that is a claim, but any argument/fact to back it up is missing.
You know, that i can´t answer such a question with yes or no (remember the old "do you still beat your wife" question? ) .
You have stated that you have read Leventhal´s article; there is a nice proposal; if the participants do have a high detection ability (under blind test conditions) it is absolutely acceptable to do a 10 trial test and to ask for 9 correct answers. Quick calculation shows that you were then already testing on 0.011 niveau. Still not good enough?
Wishes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.