It tasted quite "unusual" too. I almost thought they changed it because someone ran off with the original formula. 😎
Double blind tests showed that new Coke and old Coke were virtually similar, and the person who funded the bring back of old Coke($120,000), failed the double blind test given to him. So much for double blind tests. Check it out!
Last edited:
No, they didn't. Keep trying, eventually you'll get a fact right.
Read "For God, Country and Coca-Cola: The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It," by Mark Prendergast. New Coke was rolled out specifically because it was preferred in consumer tests. In "Blink, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking," Malcolm Gladwell pointed out the errors in those tests- which had NOTHING to do with the similarity that you've just made up.
SY, I try to be as factual as possible. I really do. Now please keep that in mind, or offer real counter evidence of what I say. Grading me down like this, without offering me proof, reminds me of one of my high school teachers. I still hold it against him, today, after more than 50 years.
If you're trying, it doesn't show. I gave you two cites about your last Coke non sequitur.
Now give some actual EVIDENCE about audibility of this wire stuff. If you don't have any, it's time to go get it.
Everyone please Google: 'new coke controversy'. It will only take a few minutes. See if what I said was way out of line, or not.
I noticed this controversy, because I have easily tasted the difference in open listening tests. Many countries refused to make 'New Coke' at all. And Coke Classic is NOT the same as the best versions of Coca Cola from the past or other countries such as China or Mexico. Do you think that this simple preference would be lost in a double blind test? Well, it was. Same with cables.
I noticed this controversy, because I have easily tasted the difference in open listening tests. Many countries refused to make 'New Coke' at all. And Coke Classic is NOT the same as the best versions of Coca Cola from the past or other countries such as China or Mexico. Do you think that this simple preference would be lost in a double blind test? Well, it was. Same with cables.
Cables don't really add anything to the sound but some are better at transporting the signal undamaged. I think this is why you need better equipment to even consider making any comparisons. I don't think Nordost cables are going to reveal much with your Onkyo receiver. I also think a real good headphone system that is familiar to you will increase your odds of hearing a difference. Someone said your mind is the best tool for choosing equipment. I still think your ears are the best way to go when making a final descision. Reading about audio gear will only get you so far. I think this thread demonstrates that.
Its a good thing I got dumped in the sin bin for a week, if not the thread was sure to get closed. OH, that's right, it did anyway.
Abraxalito and Frank, keep up the good work.
Its a good thing I got dumped in the sin bin for a week, if not the thread was sure to get closed. OH, that's right, it did anyway.
Abraxalito and Frank, keep up the good work.
olblueyez, I don't know what you tried to do, but I think that your head is on straight about the effects of wires, and how to notice differences. When I have done it, in the past, I used a STAX tube driven headphone set, that is almost TOO revealing to be comfortable, except with the best sources, and the best audio, both hardware and software that I can get together. That is in fact how I discovered Bybee devices (I was ready to reject them), line cord differences, and of course, interconnect wire differences. Anything less, like my Onkyo, etc., who cares?
Last edited:
No objection so far. The objection comes when they try to convince 'us' to that this cable really sounds much better then the other and therefore we should get it.
Or worse, that 'we' are deaf or dumb if 'we' wouldn't hear that difference ourselves.
jd
Maybe, but that's not the point of the 'objectivists'. Their point is (and SY has said that again and again, but why be honest and represent what he really said, heh), that until it is scientifically proven, we don't know. The contention is NOT that cables cannot sound different. The contention is that so far, nobody has proven that they do.
jd
Last edited:
Excellent, use them.
Not your eyes, not the sales brochure, your ears.
You CAN tell wires apart no??
See, at the end of the day we agree.
Now ask yourself this one little question, IF it is your ears that tell the wires apart, just why do you need to know which is which?
John, can you answer my simple question please?? It's not too far back if you missed it.
I think that it is important to KEEP TRACK of what we are comparing. Therefore, one could have A,B, and even C. In this test, amplitude, polarity, and frequency response have to be carefully matched. For this test, A will always be A, B will always be B, etc.
All we have to do is play music through it and listen. This test has worked for me.
When an ABX test is employed, one loses track of whether it is A or B, because X can be either one. This is where, as the music changes, one mistakes A for B, and the reverse, B for A. It is the CHANGE in the music that confuses, not the lack of difference. Then, you get almost random results, most of the time. I pointed this out, in print, 31 years ago. Where were the rest of you?
All we have to do is play music through it and listen. This test has worked for me.
When an ABX test is employed, one loses track of whether it is A or B, because X can be either one. This is where, as the music changes, one mistakes A for B, and the reverse, B for A. It is the CHANGE in the music that confuses, not the lack of difference. Then, you get almost random results, most of the time. I pointed this out, in print, 31 years ago. Where were the rest of you?
Talking about taste, I recall an old road side coffee test about the same time frame the new coke rolled out, tests showed that the coffee that was identified as the better coffee was in fact Taster's Choice, not real coffee.😀I think the test was conducted down town New York.
Out of curiosity, after using 5meters RG6U cable since I last reported plugging them in, I pulled one channel out and switched the 2meter old MIT330 in. Was there a difference? Yes. Was the difference very big? No. What is the difference? The MIT side sounded like it had slightly more content in it, but the transients were not as clean cut, the timbre of cymbals sounded not as clean decaying as what we would normally experience in a small Jazz joint, the recorded ambience seemed a bit mixed with the instruments causing the instruments to slightly lose focus.
Which do I prefer? The RG6U cable. Bear in mind that the first generation MIT shotguns had been my prefered interconnects for a VERY long time at US$500 per M/pr, even though they were not the most expensive ones I've listened to back in the 80's.
Which do I prefer? The RG6U cable. Bear in mind that the first generation MIT shotguns had been my prefered interconnects for a VERY long time at US$500 per M/pr, even though they were not the most expensive ones I've listened to back in the 80's.
Are we reading the same thread? Far from "don't know", the assertion that it contradicts all known laws of physics has been the jumping off point for thousands of pages of amateur psychoanalysis. You're way too reasonable for this crew. 😉
That sounds like a good position - we don't know!
So if :
the people who hear differences don't state "they do, and those who cannot hear are either deaf or have useless equipment";
and
the people who believe there cannot be any differences can restrain from stating: "those who hear difference are deluded";
then there is room for a harmonious exchange of information.
If the discussion was civil and intelligent and not just playground mud slining then I would participate, because i have experience with listening to cables both sighted and DBT. I also have many experience working as a mastering engineer where I used to frequently used to use DBTs to check my work.
we have a pretty good idea?? current engineering principles (always open to change if need be)??
a very slanted ratio between successful listening tests vs unsuccessful?
Little current evidence that suggests changing the prevailing opinion of 'no audibility'?
But, as you say, always willing to re-evaluate if needed, which is why we are chatting around the office water cooler waiting till Tom does his test.
Yeah, there is always room for a bit of common courtesy. Still, sensibly pointing out that we are subject to biases (both known and unknown) is surely not the same as saying someone is deluded? Therefore, if these are not accounted for somehow then any conclusion is suspect.
We will find out an alternative somehow when John Curl tells us how he can determine cable difference audibly without resorting to a DBT which he admits will always show non audibility.
If it is a valid procedure, then perhaps SY would be willing to use it with Tom. He too (I am sure) is eagerly awaiting the answer.
Okay, what you've done up to this point is simply describe the first part of an ABX test, which is listen to A or listen to B and do that as much as you would like to do. At this point this is no different than doing a sighted test.
That's true, X can be either A or B. That's the point. If there is an audible difference between the two then it should be possible for the person to select whether they are listening to A or B, without peeking. People only “lose track” if the difference is inaudible, because, of course, they sound the same.
I don't know what you mean by the music changing. Normally in an ABX test the same music is played when you're listening to A as when you're listening to B. Levels are matched so the volume is the same. You can listen to A as much as you like, then to B as much as you like. You can listen to certain parts of the music as much as you like.
When X is played (which is just either A or B) you listen to the same music you did when you knew it was A or B. You can listen to the music a number of times if you like. You can listen to bits of it if you want to. You can repeat the music as many times as you want during the X phase. Then you just decide whether you are listening to A or B.
No, you only get results that are the same as chance (random) if there is no audible difference between A and B. If there is an audible difference then, given a certain number of trials, the maths will tell you if you’ve reached the confidence level for considering the result to be not random (usually 95%, that is less than 5% probability that the result is just random).
John, sorry!! (if this is an answer to my question) Dunno why, but I completely missed it! Lucky Brian quoted it.
So, with your requests, there is nothing to stop someone either changing from cable A to cable B (or not) is there??
In other words, if the cable has been changed you can report 'change', and if they do not change it then you can report 'no change' can you not??
I'm sure there already is a test type procedure that does this.
You agree that level matching etc etc is important??
As you have labelled them A and B, you also agree that hidden identity is important??
Seems to me that your procedure could be done somehow.
You up for it as well as Tom??
- Status
- Not open for further replies.