Lets see if I have this clear..
You demand that DBTs be peer reviewed publications but you say absolutely nothing about the claims from companies peddling cables.
My only conclusions is that you either sell these products or you own these products and you have to justify it all by attacking simple controlled listening tests.
I do not live in denial about peer reviews in science at all, I fully understand that but COMMON SENSE does not need peer reviews and in its extremely simple....Control the listening test!
Will you ever do it properly? I doubt it because your audio belief system would crash around you and why would you want that to happen.
I just want people to control their listening tests PROPERLY! I just want people to do them and then make conclusions.
RDFs simply wants people to believe that DBTs are invalid and his is using the "peer review" position.
"peer reviewed" isnt the litmus test for validation. I have never read about a "peer reviewed" speaker meausrement but they are valid. There are thousands of comercial designs, software, mechanical and so on that do not have "peer reviews" but they are valid. Only those in academic circles does any get a hard-on for a "Peer review" and they conviently use it when they have no position.
Also, you are wrong about 100s not being done. Harman Internation has a facility just for that. Do you know who Sean Olive is? Are you aware of what they do?
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
How about the ABX company
ABX Double Blind Comparator Data
Do you know who Linkwitz is?
Frontiers
How about the stuff Ethan Winer has done
Why We Believe
Artifact Audibility Comparisons
How about Tom Nousaine's studies
http://www.nousaine.com/nousaine_tech_articles.html
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/AudiourbanLegendsTheAudioCritic.pdf
RDF lives in Canada, he should check out the NRC's labs!! I have (Born and Raised in Ontario 😉 )
http://soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm
Last edited:
@ doug20,
then it was simply a misunderstanding. Quoting from your post (#12433):
That sentences led to my impression that you were arguing with hundreds of dbts that were done on cables and that were confirming your opinion.
Apparently (regarding your last post) you meant it more in a general sense but then i don´t understand the connection to the "mountains of data showing very little if any audible differences" and the explicit mentioning of "....SQ with different cables" .
It is obviously a good advice for people to increase their listening skills and to learn to do proper controlled tests.
But i think you´re misunderstanding rdf´s position. He only claims that a test (especially if you are arguing with results and draw generalized conclusions) has to be a _real_ test, and that means it has to be objective, reliable and valid.
Otherwise it is as easy to get wrong results with a blind test as it is with every other test too.
Wishes
then it was simply a misunderstanding. Quoting from your post (#12433):
That sentences led to my impression that you were arguing with hundreds of dbts that were done on cables and that were confirming your opinion.
Apparently (regarding your last post) you meant it more in a general sense but then i don´t understand the connection to the "mountains of data showing very little if any audible differences" and the explicit mentioning of "....SQ with different cables" .
It is obviously a good advice for people to increase their listening skills and to learn to do proper controlled tests.
But i think you´re misunderstanding rdf´s position. He only claims that a test (especially if you are arguing with results and draw generalized conclusions) has to be a _real_ test, and that means it has to be objective, reliable and valid.
Otherwise it is as easy to get wrong results with a blind test as it is with every other test too.
Wishes
It was a comment to his "strawman" post. My position has always been DBTs are valid, DBTs are done more then you think and more people should do them.
There are > 100s DBTs done. I have done over 20 myself. Is all that data available online? I have no idea but its a moot point because people should just do them.
His position is simple really,he is simply trying to discredit the DBTs but saying if not done 100% correct they are invalid. That is the ultimate "straw man" arguement and its done by the subjective side all the time. He even takes it further to discredit my opinion on the topic. I have met guys like him in the boardroom many, many times over the past 20 years and at the end of the day, I know who has the contracts 😉
Just control the variables. Even simplistic DBTs show valid results.
There are > 100s DBTs done. I have done over 20 myself. Is all that data available online? I have no idea but its a moot point because people should just do them.
His position is simple really,he is simply trying to discredit the DBTs but saying if not done 100% correct they are invalid. That is the ultimate "straw man" arguement and its done by the subjective side all the time. He even takes it further to discredit my opinion on the topic. I have met guys like him in the boardroom many, many times over the past 20 years and at the end of the day, I know who has the contracts 😉
Just control the variables. Even simplistic DBTs show valid results.
Last edited:
No, i really don´t think so; maybe he could earn some merits for the efforts, but it wouldn´t raise the sales figures. If you think a moment about the varity of cables existing, the brands and different price targets (and vastly different combinations of gear) it became quite obvious why this could not happen.
Double blind test results are interesting for some aspects and if you are working scientifically then there is no alternative, but for the commercial success there impact is negligible.
Wishes
Last edited:
@ doug20,
if an experimenter doesn´t use positive controls on sufficient sensitivity levels he just can´t show that his test is valid.
And if possible bias mechanism were not addressed, the statistical analysis is partly alarming and no measurements were on hand then it is quite unlikely that the experimenter did control the variables.
That are the reasons why i am not convinced by the Meyer/Moran test markus76 has linked to, although it was published in a peer review magazine.
Wishes
if an experimenter doesn´t use positive controls on sufficient sensitivity levels he just can´t show that his test is valid.
And if possible bias mechanism were not addressed, the statistical analysis is partly alarming and no measurements were on hand then it is quite unlikely that the experimenter did control the variables.
That are the reasons why i am not convinced by the Meyer/Moran test markus76 has linked to, although it was published in a peer review magazine.
Wishes
Fair enough, its fine to question them.
But if all products are hidden and the switching mechanism is hidden then I can not figure out what would be invalid.
There is strong evidence in my experience that even doing that changes the results drastically.
But if all products are hidden and the switching mechanism is hidden then I can not figure out what would be invalid.
There is strong evidence in my experience that even doing that changes the results drastically.
Last edited:
People with strong believes will never really be convinced by rational arguments. That's why they say "faith is able to move mountains". In fact, this discussion is a complete waste of time because nothing valuable is gained. On the other hand, it's very entertaining.
I know, some of the threads recently have been incredible with info (wavelets, CSD, Group Delay stuff) but I keep getting sucked back into this discussion. Its just amazes me really (my addiction to the discussion and the opinion/stance some people have).
Lets build some speakers!!! 😀
New project, line array of $10 woofers and a horn in the center 😀
Lets build some speakers!!! 😀
New project, line array of $10 woofers and a horn in the center 😀
On the surface it appears to be a waste of time, but the single biggest problem in audio are the "faith" based beliefs that preclude the use and success of science in the field. If the consumer understood better the situation and stopped supporting the charlitans then the really useful products might come to the surface.
Maybe conversations like this help. But changing ideas that people believe "on faith" is a tough road, because they are more than willing to discard evidence that contradicts their beliefs and accept falsehoods that agree.
Maybe conversations like this help. But changing ideas that people believe "on faith" is a tough road, because they are more than willing to discard evidence that contradicts their beliefs and accept falsehoods that agree.
I´d say if one tries to follow the arguments, than he could learn a lot about proper test methodology, could learn a lot about several bias mechanism beside the most obvious one, and of course a lot about stereotyped thinking.
As you had linked the Meyer/Moran; isn´t it surprising that it could pass the review process?
Wishes
Last edited:
But the only possible way is to develop simple but reliable test strategies customers could use at home to find out which products will meet their demands.
Wishes
Ad hoc -isms
So why don't you develop some, or point us to some, rather than all the negative blather about the failings of "objective testing" you seem hung upon.
many here seem to have more than a rudimentary understaanding of VALID experimental design and statistical analysis, yet you carry on about unrecognized bias and such, rather than accept that the SINGLE MOST DAMNING bias in cable testing is sighted testing and opinions proffered as facts based on such.
Some of the posters here seem chicken to state their own beliefs as such, choosing instead to hide behind sniping and grousing about others honest discussions. Too bad for them, they'll never move past such adolescent behavior.
JL
So why don't you develop some, or point us to some, rather than all the negative blather about the failings of "objective testing" you seem hung upon.
many here seem to have more than a rudimentary understaanding of VALID experimental design and statistical analysis, yet you carry on about unrecognized bias and such, rather than accept that the SINGLE MOST DAMNING bias in cable testing is sighted testing and opinions proffered as facts based on such.
Some of the posters here seem chicken to state their own beliefs as such, choosing instead to hide behind sniping and grousing about others honest discussions. Too bad for them, they'll never move past such adolescent behavior.
JL
Kimber **
Silver Cable Overview: Kimber Kable-AVRev.com
Classic gobbledygook worded to obfuscate what's legit about cable effects and imbue the reader with awe and reverance😀😉
especially interesting is how high temperature drawing drastically increases the occurance of defects and annealing is a bad thing... pure ********!!
JL
Silver Cable Overview: Kimber Kable-AVRev.com
Classic gobbledygook worded to obfuscate what's legit about cable effects and imbue the reader with awe and reverance😀😉
especially interesting is how high temperature drawing drastically increases the occurance of defects and annealing is a bad thing... pure ********!!
JL
Do you believe listening should be controlled (ie. removing external influences)?
Would you like companies to be more upfront with data?
Do you own expensive cables?
Nice !
how about this Nordost Odin Cables review....
http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/ultimate-gear/nordost_odin_cables/
And what if that is not possible (or at least not feasible)? Then it's "hocus pocus and witchcraft" rules forever?
I read the entertaining material a bit differently. Slower smaller draws probably do reduce surface defects, the lower drawing temperature may also reduce the rate of reaction with surface agents.
Diamond coated dies very well will reduce any iron contamination.
Does this make a measurable difference, quite possibly, haven't tried both methods to see.
Is that what is being heard as different, if anything can be heard, I have no idea.
Would I spend my money it, personally no.
ALL wire is drawn through diamond dies these days, its the most economical. And the dies are solid diamond not "coated". Yes, the claims are mostly true, but also true for any kind of wire and in the end makes not one bit of audible difference. This is the classic audiophool claim - true, but irrelavent. Its like the "skin effect" - sure it happens - so what?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.