I'd suggest that having a minimum of 32 extra connections & unknown cabling connected in series with "cables under test" is seriously unscientific & will more than likely mask any differences what-so-ever between cables 😀
It now appears that SY is not going to use an ABX box, we might actually get to the root of the problem & see some kind of light. I'll be happy to accept whatever answer is forthcoming, though i still maintain there are differences between cables dealing with digital data between transport & any DAC etc.
Oh happy days 🙂
I don't beleive using an ABX box was ever part of the protocol...
Umm... why not "test the test" using a properly designed DBT to determine if the subject under test can hear a switchbox? Or is this too obvious for some?? 😀😉
I know, I know... it's just not fair, right??🙄
Last edited:
We have done this, 30 years ago, in the past. We could separate the contacts of the Spiegel ABX switchbox from a straight wire, even though both went through silver on silver sliding contacts for the test.
Ok, you want to test to see if there are differences between cables yes? 🙂
So the scientific method is to insert at least 4 times as many connections on top of the standard cable connections & some unknown cableing as well
Erm, am i the only person that thinks this is like this
Like i said, SY isn't going to use an ABX box..... We might actually get nearer to some kind of reality 🙂
Why? You can listen with an ABX in the system, and without one. Then see if you hear a difference. Isn't that straightforward?
jd
jd
You might have missed this from an earlier post. I think it's a reasonable summary of Toole's position on objective and subjective tests:
I have now had an opportunity to relook at Toole’s book [Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms Focal Press 2008]. It turns out that he makes a number of comments concerning subjective and objective measurements that are relevant to this debate. Even though the book is about loudspeakers, he makes some very strong and pointed comments about subjective listening tests.
For instance, in Chapter 17 Loudspeakers I: Subjective Evaluations he has this to say concerning bias in sighted listening tests (page 345):
“It is not a mystery that knowledge of the products being evaluated is a powerful source of psychological bias. In comparison tests of many kinds, especially in wine tasting and drug testing, considerable effort is expended to ensure the anonymity of the devices or substances being evaluated. If the mind thinks that something is real, the appropriate perceptions or bodily reactions can follow. In audio, many otherwise serious people persist in the belief that they can ignore such non-auditory factors as price, size, brand, and so on."
On the same page:
“In controlled listening tests and in measurements, electronic devices in general, speaker wire, and audio-frequency interconnection cables are found to exhibit small to non-existent differences.”
And again:
“This is a segment of the audio industry that is aptly described as ‘faith-based’. If you believe something, there is a possibility that you will hear it, and if you hear it, nothing can persuade you that, in a fully sighted evaluation, you might have been mistaken.”
After describing some experiments which sought to control the physical and psychological variables involving listening tests with loudspeakers, Toole summarises what was learnt from his research (page 361):
“…it is clear that knowing the identities of loudspeakers under tests can change subjective ratings. They can change the ratings to correspond to presumed capabilities of the product, based on price, size, or reputation. So strong is that attachment of ‘perceived’ sound quality to the identity of the product that in sighted tests, listeners substantially ignored easily audible problems associated with loudspeaker location in the room and interactions with different programs."
Further:
“These findings mean that if one wishes to obtain candid opinions about how a loudspeaker sounds, the tests must (his italics) be done blind.”
In another chapter, Chapter 18: Loudspeakers II: Objective Evaluations, Toole describes research linking the results of objective measurements with those from controlled listening tests. After noting that better measurements have helped loudspeaker manufacturers create better products, he makes these further observations about subjective, uncontrolled listening (page 393):
“Reviewers continue to ignore the scientific method, and a few even disparage those who follow it.”
And,
“Listening tests continue to be of the ‘take it home and listen to it’ kind, so many important variables are not controlled, and adaption and bias are both factors.”
Yes, indeed it is 🙂 However, i'm sure you have missed something, how am i going to listen to my system & then switch to something that the ABX box is connected to. Wouldn't i need a second switchbox to connect another "in line" for testing purposes? Oh dear, i'm not allowed to be subjective. How do i test objectively to see if i can hear a difference with all the new connections with an ABX box added, then another to disconnect the first? 😀 If i do it manually, which is the only way of doing it without incorporating a second switchbox, i'd be accused of "peeking".
Or are you going to take someones word for it that there are differences with all these extra connections? I mean if one connection doesn't make a difference then 1,000,000 x 1 won't? No?
Like i said previously, i'd rather have as few connections as possible & i'd take a cheap cable & connectors over lots of connections.
Bests jd 🙂
Mark.
Lol, that somber tome reeks of desperation. Now misrepresenting obvious irony/sarcasm? This thread has dozens of interlocking sub-threads, my comment originally focused on our discussion of the wisdom of using an ABX box, one in which you further took an earlier tact of misrepresentation, claiming I called it full of RF and ground issues. It doesn't take much for anyone who wants to clear this up to go back a few pages.
Game on I guess SY, if you can't respond logically play to the crowd? The gulf between scientists and engineers isn't nearly as wide as I thought. Welcome to the cheap seats.
so what
But you didn't try it with ruthenium or any of the other metals with quasi-quantum hyperbolic transfer coefficients.
Besides, that was 30 years ago. that data is ancient history and irrelevant in liight of what is now known.
But you didn't try it with ruthenium or any of the other metals with quasi-quantum hyperbolic transfer coefficients.
Besides, that was 30 years ago. that data is ancient history and irrelevant in liight of what is now known.
It was with mercury switches. 30 years has not changed much. Show me what has been changed, please. Is there any low level contact better than pure gold for relays, pure silver for switches. 30 years is a a long time, but I doubt it. Please prove me wrong.
I explained this one repeatedly and you continue to ignore and misrepresent it. An ABX box makes system architectural changes on the same order - RF, grounding as examples - as a cable change. If a technical reason why a cable change makes an audible change isn't obvious, and you want to test if cables are audible, it makes no rational sense to introduce a variable on the same order of a cable in series with a cable to test a cable. Or, restated, it only makes sense to an administrator a priori convinced neither makes a difference.
And now omniscient? How do you I've never seen pictures? Curious how this one will come back through the funhouse mirror.
Proof? You want proof?
Sorry, I guess I and my colleagues are just operating at a different level...😀😉
Sorry, I guess I and my colleagues are just operating at a different level...😀😉
What if you like the sound through the box ? 😀
Buy a box and enjoy it. Would that be a problem for you?
But seriously, why not do a controlled test to see if the box can be identified?
jd
Last edited:
They are brandished as valid tests even thou they are no better than non-blind subjective tests at telling you anything scientifically significant.
I'd estimate that put under scrutiny 95% of what passes as DBT would be tossed out as faulty. I do have confidence that the ones Floyd & Earl do would pass scrutiny. No slight on their DBTs was intended.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.